AND  IMPORTfRS 
1^0       3»W     tHANCISCO      eft 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

SCHOOL  OF  LAW 


/ 


//itv 


yd 


V     V 


'b' 


tv' 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/fraudandmistakeOOkerr 


A   TREATISE 


ON  THE  LAW  OF 


FRAUD  AND  MISTAKE. 


BY 


WILLIAM   WILLIAMSON    KERB, 

OF  Lincoln's  inn,  barrister-at-law. 


WITH  NOTES  TO  AMERICAN  CASES, 

By    ORLANDO    F.    BUMP, 

COUNSKIXOR   AT   LAW. 


NEW  YORK: 
BAKER,  VOORHIS  &  CO.,  PUBLISHERS, 

G6     NASSAU     STREET. 
1872. 


T 
K46nf 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tiie  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-two,  by 

BAKER,    VOORHIS    &    CO., 

In  Iho  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  WasMngton. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  AMERICAN  EDITJION. 


The  English  edition  of  this  work,  upon  its  first  appearance, 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  profession  in  this  country  on 
account  of  its  fullness  both  in  the  text  and  in  the  citation  oi 
authorities,  the  general  excellence  of  the  plan,  the  mode 
of  treating  the  subject,  and  the  importance  of  the  topics  dis- 
cussed. A  work  which  thus  presents  tlie  result  of  the  latest 
decisions  in  England,  ought  to  find  its  way  into  the  majority 
of  the  libraries  in  this  country,  and  an  American  edition  be- 
came desirable. 

In  preparing  such  an  edition,  two  plans  were  open.  One 
was  to  make  a  collection  of  all  the  authorities  in  this  country 
and  add  them  as  notes  to  the  original  text.  A  work  which 
shall  embrace  al  I  the  English  and  American  cases,  is  certainly 
desirable,  bui  the  chief  objection  to  adding  the  American 
cases,  as  notefi  to  an  English  text,  is,  that  the  notes  would 
overwhelm  the  text,  and  such  a  result  ought,  in  all  cases,  to 
be  avoided.  What  is  needed,  is  a  skilful  treatise  which  shall 
combine  both  the  English  and  American  law  in  one  text ;  and 
the  writer  who  has  the  patience  and  the  diligence  to  examine 
all  the  American  cases,  will  prepare  such  a  work  rather. than 
make  annotations  to  the  text  of  some. other  author, 

671441 


iv  rREFACB. 

The  present  notes  to  the  English  text,  tlicrefore,  make  no 
sneh  :iHil)itions  pretension  as  that  of  presenting  the  whole  of 
the  American  law  npon  the  subjects  treated  in  the  original 
text.  Tlieir  aim  is  simply  to  make  tlie  English  work  more 
practically  available  to  the  American  lawyer.  Some  topics 
have  been  treated  more  fully  than  others.  On  some  points 
the  practitioner  has  been  left  to  rely  npon  the  English  text 
alone.  This  result  has  been  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the 
fact  that  they  do  not  pretend  to  be  exhaustive.  It  is  believed, 
however,  that  they  will  he  found  useful  in  practice  and  a 
desirable  addition  to  the  work. 

Oelando  F.  Bump. 

Baltimore,  Dec.  1st,  1871 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Table  of  Ej^glish  Cases  cited , ,  1 

Table  of  American  Cases   cited 21 


CHAPTEIl    I. 

FEAUD. 

Section   1. 
Genekal  Considekations 41 — 53 

Section  2. 

Misrepresentation  and  Concealment 53 142 

Section  3. 

Fraud  to  be  presuimed  from  the  inequality   of  * 

the  parties;    inadequacy  of  consideration.  143 195 

Section    4. 

Fraud  upon  third  parties 195 267 

Fraud  nj)on  creditors 196 

Fraud  upon  marriage  articles   215 

Fraud  upon  the  marital  rights 217 

Marriage  and  place  brokage  bondr; 220 

Bonds  to  marry 222 


vi  COlfTEI^TS. 

Fraud  in  withholding  consent  to  marriage 223 

Fraud  in  respjct  of  expectancies 223 

Fraud  in  respect  of  sales  by  auction 224 

Voluntaiy   conveyances  in  fraud  of  subsequent  pur- 
chasers    226 

Notice 233 

Section   5. 

Miscellaneous  Frauds 2G7 — 296 

Fraud  upon  powers 207 

Fraud  in  the  i)rcvention  by  undue  uieans  of  acts  to  be 

done  for  the  benefit  of  third  parties 273 

Fraudulent  suppression  or  destruction  of  deeds  and 

other  instruments  in  violation  of  or  injury  to  the 

rights  of  others 275 

Fraud  in  setting  up  an  instrument  obtained  for  one 

purjiose  for  another  puipose 276 

Fraud  in  assignments,  by  assignees,  &c.  &c 277 

Fraud  by  and  upon  companies  , 278 

Fraud  upon  the  Mortmain  laws  279 

Fraud  upon  the  law  of  Forfeiture 280 

Fraud  upon  the  Bankrupt  laws 280 

Fraud  upon  the  restraining  statutes  &c.  &c 288 

Fraud  in  awards 288 

Fraud  in  Judgments ...    293 

Fraud  upon  the  Crown 294 

Fraud  upon  Courts  of  competent  jurisdiction 295 

Fraud  upon  the  legislature 295 

Section   G, 

How  THE  EIGHT  TO  IMPEACH    A   TRANSACTION    ON   THE 

GROUND  OF  Fraud  may  be  lost  ■ 296 — 324 

Confirmation 295 

Kelease 298 

Acquiescence 298 

Delay  and  Lapse  of  time 303 

Purchase  for  value  without  notice 312 

Section  7. 

Remedies ^^'^ — ^^^ 

Remedies  at  law 324 

Remedies  in  equity ^^2 


COiiTENTS.  vii 

Section  8. 

Pleading.     Parties.     Proof , 3G5 — ;'>95 

Pleading 3G5 

Parties 371 

Proof. 382 

Costs 390 


CHAPTER    II. 

Mistake 396 — i56 

GENERAL  INDEX 459—505 


TAULK  OF  I'XGLISll  CASiiS  CITI-l). 


ABBOTT  I'.  Gcrnlitv,  253. 

—  V.  Swonl.'r,   y5,   102,   187,    188, 

:?():{,  ;j;h(. 
Aberdeen  llailway  Co,  v.  Blaikie,  151, 

158.  IGl. 
Adams  v.  Sworder,  158,  ICl,  105,  106, 

348,  378. 
Adainson  v.  Kvitt,  41,  46,  54,  05. 
Addis  f.  CanipbcU,  146,  M7,  301,  311. 
Adliii^jtou  !'.  Cam),  '27'J. 
Adsfttsr.  llivos,  138,  139. 
Artlock  V.  AtHeek,  440, 
Ai^ace,  cx-parte,  115. 
Agassiz  V.  iSquire,  271. 
Anoarno  v.  lIo<xan,  I'.iO,  192, 
Aiii.=lio  V.  Mcdlycott,  50,  08,  09.  359. 
Aitkon's  Arbitration,  418. 
Aldborough,  Karl  of,  v.  Trye,  187,  344. 
Aldrcd  V.  Constable,  285, 
Alden  v.  Grefjory,  52, 
Alder  v.  Boylo,  435. 
Alexander  v.  Crcjbie,  423,  454. 
Aleyn  v.  Belcher,  273, 
Allen  I'.  Anthony,  240, 

—  V.  Davies,  192, 

—  V,  Knight,  141,  251,  234,  316,  319, 

391, 

—  V.  Maepherson,  41,  44,  354. 
Allfrey  V.  Allfrev,  51, 162,  161, 179,  306, 

307,  309,  311,  387, 
Alt  V.  Alt,  40. 
Alvanley  v.  Kinnaird,  408,  411,  412,  454, 

455. 
Alven  V.  Bond,  161. 
Anderson  v.  Ellsworth,  193,  387. 

—        V.  Fitzgerald,  42,  70,  72,  73 
Andrew  v.  Wriglej-,  316. 
Anon.,  07,  100. 

—  V.  Mills,  289, 

Archbold  v.  Commissioners  of  Charitable 
Bequests,  383. 

—  V.  Lord  Howth,  95,  97,   100, 

112. 

—  V.  t>cullv,  129,  302.305. 


Ardicr  v.  ITndsoD.  177,  178,  17G,  258, 
Ardglasse  v.  Mnsehamp,  180. 

—  J'.  I'itl,  1.'.2,  193, 
Arnold  v.  Ilardwick,  208,  272, 
Ariiotv.  Biseoe,  14M,;i4l. 

Arthur  v.  ]\lidlaiid  Railway  Co.,  3r>2. 

Arundel  v.  Trevillian,  221. 

Aruudell,  Lady,  v.  rhi|ij)s,  203,  211, 

Ashurst  V.  Mil'l,  41'.»,  4:54,  455,  ' 

A^hwin  V.  Burton,  323. 

Askliam  v.  Jjarbcr,  208, 

Aspland  V.  Watte,  298,  300, 

Aston  V.  Curzon,  370, 

Atheiia}um  Life  Society  v.  Pooler,  297, 

Atkinson  v.  Mnereth,  262. 
Atterbury  v.  Wallis,  251,  200,  262. 
Att.-Gen,  v.  All'ord,  350, 

—  V.  Backhouse,  248,  250, 

—  V.  Balliol  College,  340. 

—  V.  Briggs,  110. 

—  V.  Corporation  ot  Cashel,  162, 

—  V.  Earl  of  Clarendon,  158,  161, 

—  V.  Cox,  333, 

—  r.  Cradock,  380. 

—  V.  y.3.\\  of  Craven,  346, 

—  !.  I>avey,  340 

—  V.  Fishmongers'  Co.,  307. 

—  V.  Flint,  240,  242,  312,  SIS,  322, 

—  ?'.  Grote,  452. 

—  V.  Hall,  248. 

—  r.  Jones.  252, 

—  V.  Magdalen  College,  344,  346. 

—  V.  I'argeter,  250, 

—  V.  Corporation  of  Poole,  366. 

—  V.  Kickards,  294, 

—  !•.  Sitwell,  418. 

—  V.  Stej)hen8,  244. 

—  I'.  Kerr.  340,  347, 

—  ' .  N'ernon,  355. 

—  V.  Wilkins,  313    320,  ,321,  371. 
Atwood  V.  .  4<t4,  4:;4,  454. 

—       I'.  Small,  64,  7n,  74,  76,  77,  78 
93,  .Si»6,  326. 


TAi'.i.i;  oi"  r.Nci.isii  CASTS  (  rir.i). 


Attwo«l  r.  MorrywcatliiT.  17'J,  37:1. 

Auriol  r.  Siiiitli.  'iS'J. 

Austin  r.  n.nmbiT!!,   159,  ICO.  1G8,  209. 

Ill  M  t. 

—      I-.  'rawnev,  200. 
Av.-llno  V.  M.lliiiish.  298. 
Avlot  r.  r.'\.  :n''i.  :;t'.2,  :?«.'<. 
AvUtri-  «•   Miirmv.  IM.  l.'«rt.  I.'i7. 
AylwuriJ  I'.  Kcnriicv,  17S,  19:{.  191,  301. 

Rll. 
Ayn'H  (lis.'.  41.  17.  f.9,  116,  333. 
AcGiimr  I.  Cii>c'lla,  yj. 


BaOE.  rr  pnrtr,  It'O. 
Bn;;K-li(.U-  v.  Wnllers,  09.  101. 
IJaicshaw  r.  Scvninur,  374. 
Ita^ucK'V  V.  llawley,  105. 
liailcy,  cz-fHirtr, 

— '   V.  Kicliordson,  244. 

—  V.  Wat  kins,  158. 
linily  V.  Merrill.  s:i. 
lJaiiibri;;;^L-  r.  151air,  156. 

—  f.  Moss,  94,  12."..  2.';i,SC6. 

IJakcr  r.  rraiUoy,   180,    181,    182,  301, 
344,  383,  393. 

—  f.  Carlor,  158,  Ifil,  392. 
_     f.  Monk.  143,  194.  390. 

—  V.  Uoaii.  305,  307,  391. 
Ball  V.  Mannin.  140, 

—  f.  Storif.  4'Jl. 
Bandon.  Lord,  v.  Becher.  293. 
Hankart  i'.  lIoiii,'htun,  448. 
lianniTinan  v.  Wliitc,  70,  72. 
BarbiT  r.  Kicliards.  330, 
liartjnte  r.  siiortridgc,  278. 
Barker  v.  Harrison,  173.  175. 
Barkwortli  v.  Yoiiiif;.  89,  342. 
Barlin;:  v.  Bisliop,  2(t7,  208. 
Barnard  v.  lia',;slia\v.  279. 

—  V.  lliuiter,  105. 

—  V.  Sutton.  374,  375,  876. 
_        V.  Wallirt.  132. 

Barnardiston  r.  Linjrood,  187,  344. 

Ilarni'-i  v.  I'rfcland.  331. 

BunRsLy  t-.  I'owtll.  93,  275,  352,  353, 

3.VI. 
Barn.-tt  r.  Slicffield,  323. 
Barnliardt  v.  UrccnHliiclds,  231,  240,  217, 

218. 
Barr  r.  (iibc'n,  105.  432. 
liarrark  t'.  M'(  niiocli.  2o9. 
Barrett  v.  llarll<-v.  150,  150. 

_       r.  \\.11».'210. 
B.-imrtfrtCa-c.  74.  93.  117.  11«. 
Barrow  i-.  llnrrow,  419,  423,  428,  456, 

—  V  ilri-i-uuw^K  275. 
Barry  ».  (  rut-Hk^y.  40,  47, 48,  74,  93,  94 

110,  3t',',»,  374. 
BarUioloiiJ'-w  r.  Leech,  159. 


Barll.tt  V.  Salmon,  40.  02.  Si,  257,  352, 
357.  391. 

—  V.  W.dU,  148, 
Barton  v.  llaxsiinl,  101, 

~       r.  Vanli.ylluiyson.  195,  207.  233. 
Barw.U  v.  Barw.'il,  3i»rt,  3o7, 
Barwiok  r.  Kni:li>*h  Joint  Slock  Banking 

Co,.  112.  123. 
Bnto  I'.  Bank  of  Kn^liiiid,  191, 
—  V  .  llooner.  402. 
Batonmn  v.  Boynton.  430.  454. 

—  V.  Itanisay.  374,  370. 

—  I'.  Willo.\407. 
Bates  V.  fJrav("i,  44.  344. 

—  i>,  llowitt,  120. 

—  r.  .Inlins.m.  313.  310.  324, 

Bath  A  Monta-m-'rt  Case,  241,  258,  884. 

Battorsby  r.  Sinytli,  288. 

Batty  »',  Chest cr",  377. 

Baxondale  r.  Scale,   67,  412,  432,  435, 

450. 
Bnvlis  1'.  Att.-Ccn.,  452. 
Bayly  v.  AVilkius,  171. 
Baynard  v.  Woollev.  379. 
Bavne  v.  FiTjxuson,"  182,  302. 
Be'iden  f.  Kin;:,  lOO.  102,  304.  336. 
Beadles  r.  Biirch,  3S0.  394,  395. 
Heale  v.  Hillini:.  10.'.,  180. 
Hennland  c.  Bradley.  1S3,  194. 
Beasley  v.  Ma-rath'.  177.  ITS.  179. 
Bcaulort,  I)iikc  of,  r.  Neeld,  407. 

_  f.  Patrick,    130,    183, 

135. 
Beauinont,  ex-pnrt>\  101. 

—  r.  Bramlcv,    419,   421,   423, 

430. 

—  r.  1V11,4I9. 
Beavan  v.  M'Donnell.  145. 

—  «.  Lord  ().\ ford.  230,  207. 
Beck  V.  Dean.  278. 

—  V.  Kuntorowicz,  95.  172.  175.  373. 
Beckett  V.  Cordlev,  130.  131,  148,  261. 
Beckford  v.  Wa.ie.  3o4.  305,  3u7. 
Becklcy  v.  Newland.  222,  224. 
Beddocs  I'.  I'm;!),  20'.». 

BciUord  I'.  HaL::<lia\v.  373. 

Bedford,  Duko  of.  v.  Coke,  2S0, 

IJeechinitr  .'.  Lloyd,  47,  309. 

Beere  t'.  llofVineister,  209. 

Helm  r.  Burnesa,  69,  70.  71.  72,  331, 

Bt  lhaven'.s  ("aso.  Lord,  4o4. 

Bell  I'.  Ihirke.  217. 

—  V.  Cnrc'.on.  199. 

—  V.  (Jardimr,  4oO. 

—  r.  11.. ward,  140,  191. 

—  V.  .Mi.lluiid  Kailwny  Co.,  130. 

—  V.  Simpson.  281,  282. 

Bellamy  v.  Snbim',    52,    100.    181,   811, 

330,  343.  357,  371,  372.  .'182.  390. 
BelleW-  .'.  KusmU,  302,  312. 
BcU'ii  CoMc;  333. 


TAMLi:    OF    KNCLISII    C  \Si;S    (TI  KI). 


BHoit.  n  nk  ..f.  v.  I'.nilr,  :j;;l. 
liutiliuiii  I'.  Kraiii',  ^•■>il,  '^I'l?. 

—  V.  I'liiltMl  (Jiiaraiiti'C,  «tc.,  Anso- 

cialioii.  7'». 
]-!eiiiictl.  ex]ui,t,\  l.'.T,  \M,  l.'i'.t,  KIO,  ICl, 
If.c,  Jiti,  ;i.|y. 

—  V.  (;.)II.-y.  .'Jdl. 

—  f.  Jiidson,  101. 

—  V.  Wale,  r.2,  HC,  :j07,  880,888, 

Uenscn  .•.  IK-atlioni,  ir.l,  KU.  172,  350, 

\iT.\. 
Hentloy  f.  Craven,  172.  171,  17.').  182. 

—  V.  Mackav,   1K2,   l'.»5,  410.  421, 

•122.  l-j:!,  lao,  454. 
BcMVon  V.  Nettlcfold,  ;{78.  ;5S8, 
Berdoe  i-.  Dawson,  180,  182,  254,  301. 
licrnul  I'.  Lord  ])()n('i^al,  :ji)2. 
IScriiard's  Case,  1  Id. 
]>cTrisf()rd  »'.  Milward.  KJti. 
Ik-rry  v.  Arinit.stead,  W.'.Z,  IJr.O,  380,  304. 
Jiorwick,  Mayor  of,  v.  Murray,  238,  350. 
Bcsscy  V.  Windliaia,  204. 
Bevnn  v.  Ilabiood,  102. 
Bcxwi-U  V.  Clui.stie,  225. 
IVi^'ije  V.  Parkinson,  107. 
Bilbie  v.  Lmnlev,  402,  403. 
Bill  V.  Curi-ton,'230,  233. 
Billapfc  c.  Souihee,  152,  183,   191,  344, 

383,  387. 
Bills  V.  Smith,  2S0. 
Bingham  v.  JSingliani,  400,  454, 
Birch  V.  Blairrave,  376. 
Bird  V.  Fox,  25ti. 
Birdcall  v.  Uussell.  230,  237. 
Birley  v.  IJirley,  270. 
Bisco  V.  Ear!  of  Daiibury,  241. 
Bishop  V.  Cinirch,  425. 

—  V.  Countess  of  Jersey,  382. 
Bittlestone  t'.  Cooke,  212,  281. 
Blackburn's  Case,  90. 
Blackford  v.  Christian,  146. 
Blackhall  v.  Coombs.  407. 

Blackie  v.  Clarke,  189,  192,  254,  312, 
436. 

HlackK.w  V.  Laws,  239. 

lilagrave  i'.  Routh,  166,  168. 

Blaiu  V.  Agar,  47,  369. 

Blair  v.  Bromlev,  47.  52,  111,  115,  309, 
333,  334,  381,  382. 

Blake  v.  Mowatt.  95,  98,  99,  337. 

Blakemore  v.  Bristol  and  Exetur  Rail- 
way Co.,  373. 

Blakcney  v.  Baagott,  187. 

Blake's  Case,  351. 

Blanchet  v.  Foster,  220. 

Bland,  cr-partc,  281,  283. 

Blenkinsojip  >■.  BlonkinsDpp.  295. 

Blunnerliassclt  r.  Day,  162,  291,  300, 
302,  300,  310. 

Blest  V.  Brown,  122,  393. 


Bli>>Hclt  r.  D/inicl,  182. 

I'.lix.d  !■.  Kcll.r.  131. 

B1<ivi;'h  'J'ruHt,  Jir,  15S.  ir,2,  166,   173. 

Hiiildingliiri  c.  Langford.  161. 

Hold  I'.  lliilrhin.M.n,  HH,  »o,  Hl.  421. 

liniiA  V.  llopkiim,  135. 

Booth  V.  Cicswickc,  167. 

Borell  t'.  Dann,  187,  239,  250,  258,  318, 

363. 
no'^nnrjuct  v.  Dn.Hhwood.  377. 
Ho.soii  /'.  .Statiiain,  270. 
Bi)th.iinlcy  V.  Sfjnin.',  306,  308. 
Bolt  V.  Siuitli.  190,  212. 
Boursot  V.  Savage,    51,    236,    259,    260, 

261. 
Howcn  r.  Evans,  44,  51,  312,  314,  318, 
320,  321,  307,  384 
—      I'.  Kirwan,  190,  191. 
r.ower  V.  Coop'jr,  187,  363. 
Bowi-3  J'.  Fo.stcr,  388. 
liowlus  V.  Stuart,  Oti,  261,  270,  298,  380. 
IJoyd  V.  Belton,  130. 
Boynton  ,:  Hubbard,  221. 
Boyse    I'.  Russborougli,    183,    184,    193, 

195. 
Bozon  V.  William.^,  142,  250,  251. 
Brace  v.  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  324, 

370. 
Brackcnbury  v.  Brackenbury,  375,  370. 
Braddick  v.  Mattock,  443. 
Bradford,  Earl  of,  i'.  Earl  of  Romney, 

421,  455. 
Rradley  v.  Busley,  336. 
Bradwin  v.  llarpur,  449. 
Brandling  r.  I'iiiuiiner,  92. 
Brandlyn  i'.  Oi<l,  316. 
Brcadalbane,   Marquis    of,   v.    Cliando3, 

407,  421,  422. 
Brealey  i;  Collins,  358. 
Brce  I',  llolbech,  104. 
Brennan  v.  Bolton,  136. 
Brent  v.  Brent.  125,  380,  394, 
Bridgnian  v.  Green,  51,  191. 
BrigiiS,  ex  parte.  302. 
Brigiiam  v.  Tillingliast,  213. 
Bright  V.  Eynon.  47. 

—  1'.  Legerton,  300,  309. 
Bright's  Trust,  Ji<',  240,  252,  254,  255. 
Ijrinkley  v.  llann,  185. 

Brisbane  i'.  Adams,  224. 

—       V.  Dacres,  402,  403. 
Bristow  V.  Wiiitmore,  114. 
British  Linen  Co.  v.  Caledonian  Insur- 
ance Co.,  139. 
Broadbent  v.  Barlow,  236,  239. 
Brock  well's  Case,  340. 
Broderick  r.  Mroderick,  53.  298. 
Brondev  v.  >mith,  43, 187.  311,  36C,  393. 
[  Brooke'c.  Gaily,  104. 

—  V.  Lord  Mostyn,   126,  353,  367. 

404. 


TAiii.i;  OF  i:n(;i,isii  casi-.s  (  itiid. 


Urt'oki',  I^nl,  r.  It.niniUlnvaili',  00,  75, 

^*J.  3.M»,  :{Ct».  :u\\.  :i'.io. 
nrookninii  r.  H«thM'hil.l.  IMH. 
ItrookHlmnk  i-.  Stnitli.  .HOl,  <i:!0. 
Urothcrton  r.  Hatt.  .JAS. 
Lroucliloii  r.  Hr.-u-litoM.  15«.  ISrt. 

—         r.  Iliitt.   l:H.  401,  40H.    I'M, 
•I.M. 
llmwn  r.  Koiunnly.  171,  4'JO,  •l.'.l. 
llmwn  r.  lirown,  •JSS. 

—  f.  Ktl:^ii:rtoii.  1<>7. 

—  r.  Knnpton.  'J8J,  283i, 

—  r.  Mc.ntiroinfTV,  !<•». 

—  r.  Tlioipi-.  i:5U.  13i. 
Browne,  AV,  lt>l. 

—       r.  Cross.  nO».  305,  310. 
Browning  »•.  Morris,  377. 
Urownsword  «•.  Kdwanis,  'J'Ji. 
Itnuntit  «'.  Morton,  21 1. 
Brunton  r.  Lislor.  S2. 
BrviluM  r.  Brunfill,  4t.  Oft,  372,  381. 
BuVkill  r.  Blenkhorn.  274. 
Bucklo  V.  Mitchell,  227,  2:10,  235. 
Bufp  r.  Turnir,  122. 
Bulkl.-y  V.  Wilford,  125,  171,  274. 
BwUock  r.  Downos,  :;iil.  -UiL 
Burke  r.  Prior,  100,  129. 

—  I',  lloperson,  123. 
Burncll,  cx-p<trtf,  ItVJ. 

—  r.  Brown,  l'i;{. 

Burnes  v.  IVDnell,  74,  93,  115,  lift. 
Burro we3  r.   Lock,    C9,    189,    333,   341, 

342. 
Burrows  i-.  Wnlls.  300,  301,  303. 
Burton  V.  Blnkeniorc.  382. 

—  V.  Kni-ht,  288,  291. 

—  If.  \Vo.jkcy,  182. 
Bury  »'.  Oiiitenheim,  ISO. 
Busiihvf.  Kllis.  :;41. 

l?UHli.-il  .•.  15usli(]l.  204,  2('.5,  2fi.%. 
Butcher  v.  Butclicr,  45,  209.  273. 
Butler  r.  Miller,  183.  187,  189. 

—  r.  Mulviliill,  147. 

—  V.  l>ord  l'ort«rlin;;ton,  248. 
Butterwortli  v.  Walker,  432. 
Buxton  V.  Lister,  3(;:!. 

Byrne  i*.  Vivian,  314. 
Byrne  p.  Godfrej',  275, 


Cadma."*  r.  Horner,  94,  357. 
Codtnjan  v.  Kennctt,  190.  199,  201,  210. 
Cnillnud  r.  Krtwick,  209,  212. 
Cairnenms  v.  Loriiner.  127. 
rnlcraft  v.  ll'M-'iur-k,  291. 
Cidhizhnn  v.  Cnllnifhati.  182. 
Cnherhv  f.  Williaiiix.  424,  455. 
(•ttni|.l>e||  f.  Klomin;;.  .'t2H. 

—  r.  French.  453. 
-         r.  Iloopor,  145. 

—  V.  Leech   44  L 


roinjibell  r.  I'onnsvlvnnia  Life  Insurnnco 
Co.,   101. 

—  r.  Walker.  158,  159. 
CniDjiion  I'.  Cotton,  2<t2. 

Cnne  f.  I>«.rd   Allen,  105,    166,  168,  178, 

175. 
C«nn  I'.  Caiin,  297. 
Caniian  r.  Ueynold'«,  445. 
Cnnnoek  \\  .lauiieey,  98,  259. 
Cnrew'rt  Kstate,  lir,  225,  202.  263 
Carev  I'.  Cnrey,  178. 
CarleloM  . .  Karl  of  Dorset,  218. 
Carpenter  r.  lleriot.  179. 
Cariniiael  v.  l\>wis,  04.  4o8,  429,  432. 
Carte  r.  Curio,  280. 
Carter  v.  IJoehm,  72,  119,  120. 

—  f.  Carter,  140. 141,  142,  234.256. 

313,  314,  310,  441,442. 

—  V.  Palmer,  153,  107, 108, 171, 175. 

344. 
Cnrtledce  v.  l!n<lboHrno.  350,  887. 
Cnrver  i'.  Richards,  272., 
Casborno  v.  Baislmin.  143,  150,  161,  K.3. 

100.  179,  180.  183. 
Co.se  V.  .Innies.  138,  313,  321. 
Casey's  Trust,  Ite,  287. 
Casticlon  r.  Turner.  452L 
Caton  I'.  Cnton,  13('». 
Cutor  r.  Burko,  322. 

—     »■.  Lord  Pembroke,  407. 
Cawdor,  Karl  of,  r.  Lewis.  129. 
Cazonove  v.  British  Equity  Ins.  Co.,  73. 
Cecil  V.  Hulcher,  374,  375,  370. 
Chttdwick  II.  Chadwick,  300. 

—  1'.  Turner,  2t)6. 
Chalmer  ••.  Bradley,  159,  303,  304. 
Chauiljerlaine  v.  Aijar,  275. 

—  V.  ciuunberlaine,  275.. 

Chambers  r.  Crabbe,  18ii,  217,  218. 

—  r.  Howell,  182. 

—  r.  Minehin.  4  18. 

—  t>.  Waters,  ItlO,  102. 
Chnnijiion  r.  Uiirbv.    1<>3,   16&,  160,  302, 

:;(i.'),  307.  31 L  891. 
Chanter  v.  llo].kins.  70,  107,  410 
Chapinau  i'.  liniery.  2<'2. 

—  V.  Cibsoii.  43H,  443. 

—  V.  Sj)eller,  105. 
Chnppell  f.  (ireLCory.  P»4,  304. 
Charlesworth  r.  .lennings.  04,  65. 
Charlton  v.  Coombs,  352.  354,  380. 
Charter  i-.  Trevelvn,    173.  175,  300,  3^2l, 

310,311. 
Chennell  v.  Martin.  52. 
Che.slvn  V.  l)all»y.  100.  107. 
Che.stl-r  >•.  Spar-jo.  92,  1H».  3.M. 
ChcHterlield  f.  .lanseii.  43.  40,  297. 
Childerw  i'.  ChihlerH,  375. 
Chin:j  I'.  <  bin:;,  447. 
Cholm..n.leI.y  v.  Clinton,  300,  304,   306 

307. 


TAHMO  (U-'  i;n(;msii  casks  (I'll;!). 


C'lmrk  V.  Cromer,  2'M). 

Cliurcliill  I',  (irovc,  'Jti7. 

Clmk  i:  llulljiiul.  :;-r_'. 

(."Iiuiriciirdc,  Miii'(]uis  of,  v.  Ili-nriing,  105, 

:!or).  ;'.u7.  :!ll,  :!l-j,  :iiil. 
('Inpliiiiii  I'.  Sliillctii,  7f,. 
Clare  Hall  r.  ilanliii;,',  l'J",i,  l:;:j. 
Cltti-k  V.  liur-li,  JliT. 

—    V.  Malpas,  I'M.  :M  I,  :{71. 
Cliirko  V.  liirkiTs.  ■{•17. 

—  V.  Coliley,  MS. 

—  V.  Dickson, -IS,  TJ,   91.',  ;520,  r,:iO, 

•.'>:w. 

—  f.  (Jrant.  r>C,J.  lis. 

—  V.  Mackinfosli,   7t>,    77,   78,    359, 

:!(•,(»,  :i!iO. 

—  t'.  Mamiiiiir,  •!•">. 

—  I',  rarkcr,  'J.'l'-i. 

—  r.  SawytT,  lIC,  19r). 

—  V.  Swnilc,  157. 

—  1'.  Tipping,  95,  no,  171. 

—  V.  AViiitht,  2(M,  2-n,  '>o:>,  2\y.i. 
Clarksoii  v.  llanway,  190.  191,  192,  1585. 
Clavcriiijr  v.  Thomas,  lilO, 

Ck-gir  V.  Ednioiulson,  182,  302,  305,  306, 

307.  ;!12,  ;i91. 
Cleland  ,-.  Lech,  342. 
Clements  v.  Hall,  182,  302.  300. 

—  V.  Welles,  'Ml.  213,  257,  317. 
Clermont,  Viscount,  »'.  Tasbiirgh,  359. 
Clifford  »'.  Brooke,  373. 

—  V.  Terrell,  191,  192. 
Cliaon  V.  Cockburn,  398,  401,  430. 
Clinnn  v.  Cooke,  135,  130,  4 IS. 
Clowes  )'.  lU'jc^'insoix,  418,  435,  455,  456. 
Clunn,  lie,  2S8. 

Cobbett  r.  Brock,  193,  254,  260,  312. 
Cochrane  i'.  Chainber.s,  209. 

—  V.  Willis,  400,  431,  432. 
Cock  V.  Richards,  223, 
Cockroft  V.  Sutclitie,  269. 

Cockell  V.  Taylor,    187,    190,  297,    300, 

322,  323. 
Cockerell  v.  Cholmeley,  297,  300,  419, 

442,  443,  455. 
Cockinc:  v.  Pratt,  298,  398,  401.  400,  4U. 
Cockshott  V.  Bennett.  215. 
Colbv  V.  Gadsden,  SI,  82,  83,  ^2,  358, 

359. 
Golclough  V.  Bolger,  344,  353. 

—  V.  Sterum,  317. 
Cole  V.  Gibbons,  2',i7. 

—  V.  Gibson.  191,  221. 
Coleman  r.  Jlollerish,  160,  107. 

—  V.  Riches,  111. 

—  V.  Wallis,  215. 
Colemerc,  lie,  282.  283. 
Coles  V.  Ilulme.  435. 

—  v.  Jones,  322. 

—  V.  Sims,  235,  240. 

—  «;.  Trecothick,  157,  15?,  187. 


Collelt  V.  jMorrii^on.  421.  422. 
Collier  V.  Brown,  ISO.  1k7. 

—  V.  JenkinH.  04.  302,  303. 
Collins  I'.  Archi-r,  32ii. 

—  r.  Blant.rn.  388. 

—  V.  Kvans,  57. 

—  f).  liar.-,  19(1,  i;t3. 
Colombino  v.  IVidinll.  202,  282,  284. 
Colpoys  V.  Coljioys,  45;i. 

Colt  V.  Woolla.ston,  4:t.  44,  C72. 
Colyer  r.  Clay.  4<ic,,  rM. 

—  V.  l-'inch,  14(1,  141,  240.  251,  259 
Conyers  v.  Knnis.  94. 

Cook  V.  rrilcliard,  285. 

—  V.  Rogers,  280, 

—  V.  Wolton,  390. 
Cooke,  (X-]mrtr.  287. 

—  V.  Jiurlchaell.  181. 

—  V.  Clay  worth.  147. 

—  i\  (J reeves,  l'J5. 

—  V.  Lamotte,    1153,    190,   191.    193, 

3S0,  387. 

—  V.  Setree,  106. 

—  V.  Walker,  211. 
Cookson  V.  Lee,  259. 
Coomer  v.  Bromley,  382. 
Coope  V.  Crcswell,  '_'14. 
Coo])er  I'.  Joel,  120,344. 

Cooper  V.   Phibbs,  346,   398,   399,  400 

401.  430. 
Copis  t'.  Jliddleton,  180,  190,  l'.i9. 
Coppin  V.  Fernyhon'_^h,  241. 
Cordinicley  v.  Clieeseborou:;li,  67. 
Corlelt  ?-."Radcline,  199,  2(J5. 
Corley  v.  Stntl'ord,  171. 
Corneforth  v.  Geer,  410. 
Cornfoot  v.  Fowke,  09. 
Corry  i'.  Crcniorne,  321. 
Cory  V.  Cory,  147. 

—  V.  Eyre,  142,  234,  321,  380. 

—  V.  Gcrtchen,  148,  382. 
Cosser  v.  Collinge,  249. 
Cotcliing  V.  Bassetl,  357. 
Cothay  v.  Sydenham,  251. 

Cottam  V.  Ea.stern  Counties  Railway  Co., 

1.38,  142,  312,  314,  315,  •^^^. 
Cotterell  v.  Purchase,  51. 
Coulson  V.  Allison,  182,  193. 
Couturier  v.  Hastie.  4:;0. 
Covcrlcy  v.  Burrell.  3('.2. 
Coward  t'.  Hughes,  4Ul,  454. 
Cowell  V.  Watts,  3o7. 
Cowen,  ez-pnrtc,  288. 
Cowper  V.  Cowper.  275. 
Co.x  V.  Bruton.  398.  4o8,  414,  419,  424, 
429,  437,  4.^4. 

—  V.  Coventon,  210,  211,  254.  255,  362, 

39(1. 

—  V.  Middleton,  80,  358. 
Cranston  v.  ^Iar^llall,  7o. 
Cranston,  Lord,  v.  Johnstone,  100,  3S9. 


TMU-i:    OF    r.NCMSlI    CASi;s   CITKD 


Cniwuliny  r.  Tluirnton,  V'i. 

Crrapli  r".  \\Umh\.  Urt. 

OiVini  •*.  t  ulli'ii,  •'<H'. 

CriiUaiul  r.  iK-  Mnulcy.  47.  SCO,  872. 

CrippH  r.  .Ii'c.  »s\>. 

(V.lt  I'.  (Jriiliain,  oil. 

l"r«i|1<>ii  r.  Mrntsliy,  -I  I.  -10. 

l'r.'fl!«  r.  Middlddn.  '.••J. 

rn>k.r  V.  Ma-tin.  'J'lO.  'J30. 

Crosby  r.  MiiMhton,  4'J7. 

Cross  r.  .'"prii.'s:"'.  ^V 

(r.'sskoy  r.  r.iHik  of  Wal.-s.  .'$73. 

C'rosskill  I'.  Howtr.  154,  150. 

lYowtlv  »'.  I>nv.  )t''4. 

Crow  f'.  IJiillani.  14:t,  297.  Mi. 

Cruiki-lmiik  f.  M'Vionr,  'Ml. 

CulKn  r.  O'.Miura.  243. 

Ciillii).  Tnistce,  »-.  Jolin-^on,  07,  91. 

CuUinirwortli  v.  l.loyd,  215,  a'J3. 

CuiiiIhtK'sii'  r.  l.aw.sun,  410. 

Currier.  Coold.  4<t2. 

—  r.  Nin(l,'j:;H. 
Curtis  I'.  Curtis,  :t70. 

—  v.  IVrrv,  288,  375  41t. 

—  r.  Priic.  I'.t'.f. 

Curzon  v.  Helwortliy.  186,  191,  3G6,  882. 
Constance,  v.  Constance,  194. 
Cutis  V.  Salmon,  104. 

r>.\rnE  r.  Gor'^e.*.  4:)0,  454. 
I>akiiii;  v.  Wliiiiiper,  227,  "iW. 
l/Ail  iac  i:  D'.Ml.iac,  95,  154,  210,  341. 
I>alhy  r.  Tullen.  95. 
Dale."  f.  Uniiiilton,  l.'{5. 
Dally  r.  Wonliani.  :;I0,  .lOo. 
Dal-tun  r.  Coat-wortli,  275. 
Dulv  >•.  Kcllv.  100. 
Daiii.-l  V.  Mitchell,  01. 
Daniels  t-.  Davison,  240. 
Daiin,  V.  £i>urricr,  129,  139. 
Dan  vera  v.  Manning,  449. 
I/Arcv  r.  D'Arcy,  194. 
Darlev  r.  Sin-rieton,  183. 
Darlingt^iu  r.  Ilauiillon,  02,  81,244,250, 
257. 
—         V.  rult<^ncy,  444. 
DnuUfny  r.  Coikliurn,  51.  '.i72. 
Davenjxirt  i'.  Slatroni,  .■i52. 
Davey  r.  Durrant.  ;;|t">. 
Davi.l-i.n  r.  Tullodi,  :i74. 
DuvicH  v.  Cooper,  95,  98. 

—  f.  Davie-,  hM),  130, 132,  178, 180, 

•.'■m,  is'.to. 

—  r.  liltoh.  418. 

—  r.  .MBr».liall.  i:'.4. 
_      f.  Oltv,  375,  :;92. 

_      r.  Tliomo^2n,  317.  3 IS. 
DaviR  r.  Abrnlunn,  171. 

—  r.  Cluuiter.  125,434. 

—  r.  Dukcof  Marlborou-b.  1S7.  223, 

344. 


Dnvis  V.  .Morier.  398.  401 

—  r.  Sli.piierd.  05.  -132. 

—  f.  I,<ir<l  Stratliiiiorc,  20?. 

—  r.  Synionds.  392. 

—  r.  1\>U\\\.  209,  '270.  271. 
Davison  v.  ISoliinson,  2f>0. 
l)avoe  r.  Kaiinin;;,  15ii. 
Dawes  I'.  Uctt-H,  '^43. 
Dawson  r.  Coilis,  :t31. 

DuwsoD  i:  Massey.  177,  17«,  311. 

—  V.  I'rince,    230,    239,    250,    812, 

3i:t.  314. 

—  r.  Saiiler,  2"<9. 
Dnv  V.  Newman,  l.s9. 
Dearie,  v.  Mall.  142. 
Debenlinm  v.  Ox,  222,  C92. 
Deere  v.  (Juest.  45. 

De  lloiihtMi  V.  Money,  23.3. 

Del  .Maie  I'.  UolH-lio,'449.  4:>0,  453. 

De  Miiniicviile  v.  Crom|.t<.n.  73,  219,  220, 

De  Mattos  v.  (Jibson,  235. 

Do  Montmon-ncy  r.  Duvereaux,  297,  298, 

387,  391. 
Demly  r.  Cary.  120. 
Denno  v.  Litjiit,  73,  93. 
Dent  t'.    Bennett,    108,    H>:i,    I'."",     l".'i, 

390. 
Denton  r.  Donner.  102,  189.  367. 

—  V.  Macneil,  8'J.  83,  87,  3u7. 
Denys  v.  Sbuckbur;;h.  397,  398.  436. 
Deposit  ami  Cionernl  Life  Assurance  Co. 

1'.  Ayscouiih,  48. 
Deltniar V.  Metropolitan  aud  Trovincial 

]5aiik.  230. 
Dcvn3iies,  V.  Noble,  425. 
Devcnisb  v.  15air.es,  275. 
Devonsldre,  Duke  of,  v.  I'glin,  135. 
Dew  V.  Clarke,  140. 
Dilkesv.  IJroadmead,  214. 
Dimes  v.  Propriej-ors  of  Grand  Junction 

Kailwav  Co..  102. 
Dimmoek  t'.  llallctt,  74,  82,  83,  84,  85. 

92,  303. 
Dinis.lale  V.  ITnnsdnle.  181,  So'j. 
Dixon  I'.  Ilaldwiii.  :i:il. 
Dixons  !•.  .Monkland  Canal  Co.,  402,  403. 
Dobell  r.  llr.tciiinson,  04. 

—  r.  Stevens.  So,  85,  93,  98,  326, 388. 
Dobson.  r.  Lantl.  102. 

Dodds  ,:  IlilLs,  142,  237,  239,  254,  812, 

313.  310,  3'Jl,  3'J3. 
Doe  V.  Alsop.  205. 

—  V.  Hcvun,  286. 

—  V.  Kvan.**,  453. 

—  V.  Kord,  388. 

—  r.  lb. wells.  3SS. 

—  V.  Lewis,  217. 

—  f.  .Manning'.  227.  232. 

—  V.  Roberts.  294.  :;74.  375,  376,  451. 

—  r.  Houlle.l^e.  199. 

—  V.  llusbnin,  229,  230. 


TAIJU:    Ol'    I.XCMSII    CASIIS   ("ITKD. 


DorirHt  I'.  Emerson,  t'.l.  77.  .'ill. 
Di.l.iinii  i<.  Nok.'H.  '.»7,  '.iH.  «'.••). 
])<.imii.-it  /'.  l!(Mll()r<l,  'JSti. 
])(iii;il.lsuii  V.  (;ill<ilt,  r.l.  \:\x,  142. 

])( vim  I'.  Frickcr,  IMG,  iil7. 

Dooliii  (•.  Waril,  'i'JI. 
Door  V.  CrCHrv.  -Hi),  •1'iO. 
r)ouy;liirt  1'.  C'lilvcrwcll,  IVl,  "Iti. 
Dover  f.  I'.uek,  1">7. 
Dowell  V.  Di'w.  l:;c.,  'jitl.  in. 
Dowle  f.  SiuiiiilerH.  i:!S,  1  lu,  :;,sr,. 
Dowiics   I',   (ira/.ebrook,    157,    ir)8,    15".), 
1()2. 

—  «.  Jennin£i:.s.  217,  218,  220,  805. 

—  V.  I'ower,  -JIU. 
Draper  v.  Corlase,  1  :iO. 
Draper's  Co.  v.  D.'ivis,  !Ofi. 
Drewe  v.  Corp,  0'2,  ."01,  Wi. 

—  I'.  Lord  Norljury,  'Ji'ij. 
Drewrv  v.  liiwiu'n,  lOii,  107. 
DriseoU  r.  IJromlev,  175. 
Driiill'  I'.  I'nrker,  419. 

Drv.len  v.  Frost,  234,  248,  251,  260. 

Drysihilc,  v.  Mace,  80,  82,  91,  HOO. 

Diinlmr  v.  Tredoniiifk,  2134,  297. 

I)iin(l:i.s  I'.  Duteiis,  209. 

Duiuiaijo  V.  W  hite,  125,  434. 

Diirautv's  Case,  339,  340. 

Durham,  Earl  of,  v.  Lugard,  62,  339,  3G2, 

363,  431. 
Dutton  V.  I'oel,  275. 
Dj'cr  V.  Dvcr.  i:>2. 

—  V.    llargrave,   79,    100,    339,   359, 
361,  362,  363. 

Dykes  v.  Blake,  63,  81 


Eads  v.  Williams,  293. 
Earl  V.  Stoekcr,  2SS. 
Early  »'.  Garrett,  327. 
Estabrook  v.  Scott,  314. 
Eustham  v.  Wilkinson,  261,  262. 
East  India  Co.  v.  Donald,  384,  389.  406, 
414,  454. 

—  V.  Henchman,     93,     172, 

174,  366. 

—  V.  Neave,  4(t6. 

—  V.  Vincent.  129. 
Enton  t'.  Bennett,  422. 

I'de  V.  Knowlc-*,  2(is. 
Edi^ecunihc  r.  Stranirer,  174,  2S9,  260. 
Ed^xiwortli  V.  Edgoworlh,  318. 
Edwards  v.  Browne,  350. 

—  V.  Burt,  187. 

—  f.  Glynn,  285. 

—  V.  Ilarben,  209. 

—  r.  M'Cleav,   51,    78.  100,   102, 

3:;:;,  346,  347.  35o,  390. 

—  ».  Meviick,  J43,  150,   152,  165, 

166"  167.  170,  302,  391. 

—  V.  Moriran,  453. 


i;.|wardH  I'.  Tike.  279. 

—  V.  Williams,  170. 

—  V.  Warwick,  hj,  92   98, 
I'.iiholtz  t'.  Bannister,  105. 
Ekins  V.  TrcHliam,  S5. 

i:h»rd  V.  Llandafr.  98,  358. 

Elliott  V.  Ince,   145. 

Ellin  V.  Coleman,  333,  339  341. 

Elsey  t'.  Adnms,  394. 

I'.lwcs  i:  Elw.s,  4'J8. 

liiiiinerton  c.  .Matthews,  106. 

Kn-land  i:  D..wn.«,  '.il7,  2ls,  219.  220. 

Ernest  V.  Vivian,  3o2,  30(i,  307,  312. 

Esdailc  V.  Lu  Nauze,  51,  314,  315 

Espev  I'.  Lake,   152,   178,   179,  195,  236, 

254,  3.S3. 
Espin  c.  I'em'.jcrton,  237,  256,  259,  260, 

261. 
Estwick  V.  Cailland.  212. 
Ellv  V.  Bridi,'<s,  142. 
Evans  «.  liieknell,  46,  53,  137.  140,  149, 
277,  333,  352,  389,  3'Jl. 

—  V.  Blood,  146. 

—  V.  Bremridjre,  123,  411. 

—  V.  Carrin<;tun,  95. 

—  V.  Edmonds,  54,  55. 

—  V.  Jones,  433. 

—  V.   Lewellyn,  143,  187,  190,  193. 

—  V.  Fo'.vler,  69. 

—  V.  llichardson.  283. 

—  V.  AVilliams,  267. 

—  V.  Wyatt,  60,  OH. 
Evel}-n  V.  Templar.  227. 
Evroy  ;•.  Nicholas,  14s,  382. 
Eyre,  ez-/>arfi\  161,  382. 

—  V.  Biirmester,  259,  298,  312,  321. 

—  V.  Dolphin,  241. 

—  V.  M'Donnell,  381. 

—  V.  M-Duwell,  266. 
Eyton  V.  E^'ton,  276. 


Fago  t'.  Dobie,  277. 
—   V.  James,  313. 
Fairhcad  v.  Southee,  412. 
Falck  V.  Gooch.  435. 
Falcke  v.  Gray,  1H7,  357.  363,  411. 
Falkner  «•.  O'Brien,  52,  185,  190,  379. 
Fallon  V.  Kobins.  418.  422. 
F'airbrother  v.  Gibson,  76,  77,  80. 
F'.ireweli  i'.  Coker,  398. 
Farier  i-.  Lane,  192. 
F'arley,  cr-jmrle,  160. 
Farmer  v.  Farmer,  193. 

—     ?•.  Martin,  26s,  272. 
Parr  i'.  Sheritfe,  42S, 
Farrant  v.    lUanchford,    ISO,    i  80,    288, 

298,  302,  3113. 
Farrow  v.  Hees,  140,  252. 
Fcarou  v  Desbrisav,  209. 
Fel-'ale's  Case,  339. 


TAiu  r  <»r  I  N(;i.isii  casi'.s  <  rn:i). 


KtllowM  r.  lyonl  iJwvilvr,  ss,  '.'I,  ;i01. 
Fi'nton  r,  Urowtu'.  S'J,  h:i,  !>WJ. 
Kor.t  r.  Hill.  KS,  H'lV. 
K.rnvli.>ii;:li  V.  l.o«»lor.  4«. '278,  355. 
K.rrars  r.  rhorry,  'H'i,  310. 
Icrrrs  r.  K»Tro»*,  1'.'3. 
l'<\v>tiT  V.  Tiirnrr.  ;U'.2. 
Ki.'Kl  r.  Holland.  2:U. 
Vife  V.  t'lnvton,  ■{{»,  4r)6. 
rilim-rr.  (';ott.4«.  1'.'2.  :tSft, 
Finch  f.  Nownlinin.  -I'k 
—     f.  Slinw, 'jrili,  ;i2l. 
Fisher  r.  M.><>ii.  KM,  135. 
Ki>k  r.  Snrhtr.  160. 
rit/^ri-raKl  v.  Fiilconbortj,  259. 
Fit/>imuif>n  r.  .loslin,   111. 
Flicht  r-.  liarton.  80,  92.    103,  244.  255, 
"  257. 

—  f.  Booth.  50.  63,92.  243. 

Flint  V.  Wixxlin.  SI,  91.  92,  94,  99,  225. 

Fl<x>k  f.  .Tones,  2S5. 

Foley  V.  Hill.  304. 

Fonnerau  v.  Toyntz,  452. 

Forbes  v.  Uoss,  156. 

Ford  V.  llarrin-ton.  375,  378. 

_    t'.  Olden.  162.  194. 

_    r.  White.  266,  321. 
Fortcblow  I'.  Sliirley,  103. 
Foster,  7.V.  166. 

—  r.  Hliiek-'lone,  142. 

—  r.  Chnrles.  56,  325. 

Fowkes  V.  Miiuchgster  and  London  Life 

Assurance  Co.  121. 
Fowler  V.  Fowler,  421.  422.  423. 
V.    Scottish   Fquiliible   Life    As- 
surance Society,  424.  4.>5. 
Fox  f.  Mrtcreth,  97, 15S,"  180,  349. 
Fox's  Ca.S"'.  351. 
Frail  v.  Ellis.  240.  249.  260, 
Franks  t-.  Hollans.  158,  307. 

—  V.  Weaver.  43. 
Frascr  v.  Lew,  282, 

—  f.  Th-.mpson,  189.  202,  284. 
Frazer  t-.  Jones,  137,  321,  322. 
Fn-er  r.  lles^^e,  267. 

French  r.  French.  199,  200,  204,  205. 
Frost  f.  Hrewer,  361. 
Frowd,  rj--/KiW«',  116. 
Fuller  t'.  Ahrnhains,  224. 

—  V.  IJinnetl,  259,  260. 

—  V.  Wilson.  326. 
Fyler  r.  Fykr,  391. 


Hale  t-.  I,indo,216.  342. 
—     t'.  WilHumMon   r.t9. 
Galloway  r.  Corporation  of  London,  164. 
Oalton  t'.  Kniu-s,  221. 
Gardner  v.  (J«rdn<T,  147,  194,  IVS. 

—       v.  ()({«l<'n,  175. 
Garrard  r.  Frankel,  413,  410,  438,  455. 


(iarrnrd  v.  Urinlin;;.  417,  456. 
(iar->tin.  rzpnrti-,  278. 
(;nrth  V.  Cotton.  43.  lt'5.  379. 
(tartMidu  V.  (Snrt.side.  291. 

—  r.  Inherwood.  146.  180,  18T. 
Oarvev  r.  .MMinn.  170.  19o.  lyn. 
Cnskrll  f.  Chambers,  162. 

(Ja-s  Li;;hl  and  Coke  Co.  v.  Turner.  388. 
(leddes  v.  I'enninijton.  711,  74. 
(;edi;e  V.  l>uke  ol  .Montr'•^e.  39o. 
General  Steam   Navi;^ation  Co.  v.  Kolts 

2::8,  2:i9.  254. 
Gerard  v.  O'Keilly.  129.  260. 
(ierhard  «■.  Bates"  54.  326. 
Gibbins  v.  Philips,  2S5. 
Gibbons  v.  Caunt.  124. 
Gibbs  V.  Daniel.  165,  167.  170,  387. 
Gibson  v.  l/Kstc,  63,  346,  348,  350,  S90. 

—  r.  (Joldsuiiil,  335. 

—  V.  Injjo,  252. 

—  r.  .leyes,  151,  104,  165,  168,  187. 

380. 
Gibson  v.  Uussell,  190,  191,  192. 

—  V.  Spurrier.  103. 
Gibson's  Ca.se.  1 16. 
(iiddings  r.  Giddinij^s.  151,  182. 
CJilbert  v.  Lewis.  :;66,  :i80.  394. 
(;ile3  r.  Giles,  354,  449,451. 
GLllett  r.  reppercorii,  174,  175,  306. 
Ginger,  fj--y"i»-/',  114. 

Glascott  V.  Lainir,  3S3. 
(Masse  v.  Marshall,  4:f. 
Glvn  e.  Hank  of  Kngl.nd.  388. 
Go'blett  r.  liecli.-y,  U'.o,  453. 
Goddard  «•.  Carlisle,  17". 

—  t'.  Snow,  217.  2 IS. 
Gol.licutt  V.  Townsrnd.  7:'.,  202. 
Goldsmith  v.  Hruiiini;,  221. 

—  f.  Uu-.sell.  199. 
Gompertz  i*.  Hartlett,  5S. 

—  V.  Denton,  :H2S. 
Goodman  i-.  Snyers,  2S9,  4t)2,  447. 
Guodricke  v.  IJrowiie,  277. 

—  V.  Taylor,  282,  283. 
Goram  v.  Sweeting,  69. 

Gordon.   Lord,  r.  Manjuis  of  Hertford, 

417. 
Gordon  r.  (;ord.>n,  121.  12.'.,  4t»l,  434. 

—  I'.  I'armi'li'e,  77,  84. 

—  V.  Shaw,  37". 
(iore,  rz-/i<irlr,  161. 

—  t'.  (iilison,   147. 

_    i-.  Stjickpoole,  317,  318. 
Gorsuch  1'.  Cn-e,  62. 
(Josh  f.  Lord  Nugi-nt,  410. 
(Jovett  V.  Uii'hmnntl,  131, 
tJowland  v.  D.-  laria,  187,  297,  801. 
(ioymour  v.  I'igge,  125. 
Graham  r.  Chapman.  2S1.  282,  283 

—        t'.  ()'K-i>fe,  21 K),  206,  208. 
Grunt  V.  Campbell,  240. 


TAiw-r:  or  r.Ncr.isii  r\s!:s  citi:i). 


Mn-- 
anoa- 


137, 


007, 


304, 


(Jrant  i-.  Mnnt,  K<>.  100.  uri'.t,  ;JC.1. 
(irny  i'.  (Iiitwcll,  '12.'>. 
(.iruzi'liriHtk  v.  I'crcival,  'J'JO. 
(•rent    I^iixcmluii'i^    Ilailwiiy  f'<>.  v 

iiiiy.  r>-J.  ICil,  .::{'.•,  318.' 
(irnil    Nortlurri   I'liiUvny  Co.  v.   L 

.•-liirc,  (Ic.  I.'ailwny  i'o.,  KIT). 
(!re:it  Wi'^tcrii  Itiiilway  I'd.  v.  Crips 
Green  v.  Uiiiik  of  lln^^laiul,  3.VJ. 

—  V.  Harri'tt.  -il,  '.MK  372. 

—  »'.  liavcr.stoclic,  221. 

—  fi.  (losdeii,  '.M». 

—  V.  Lowi'.s,  214. 
Green  c  Isixon,  11,  42,  278. 
Greenfield  v.  ]5ates,  171. 

—         V.  Kdwards,  95,  122,  123, 
13S,  'J.18. 
Greenliill  v.  Cinircli,  2SS. 
Greenlaw  r.  Ilui^cll.  lf.2. 

—  >'.  Kin:,',  iri2,  1S2. 
Greensladc  /■.  Dare,  23.">,  239,  240,  248 

254,  2(12,  321. 
Greenwood  v.  Bairstow,  244. 

■ —         J'.  Greenwood,  125. 
Gregory  v.  Gregory,  158,  301,  305, 
311. 

—  V.  y\]<xhQ\],  129. 

—  V.  Pilkini^ton,  414. 

—  V.  Wilson,  407. 
Gre8leyv.Mou.slev,   105,  It'.C,  302, 

305.  307,  31 1!  348,  371,  379. 
Grey  v.  Pearson,  451. 
Grieveson  >•.  Kirsopp,  433. 
(Jriflin  v.  Clowes,  13S. 
<;rirtith  1'.  Spratk'v,  lSt'>. 
Grirtitlis  V.  Kobbiiis,  190,  192,  193. 
Grigirs  V.  Stajylce,  219,  220. 
Grisley  v.  Lotlier,  220. 
(irissell  v.  Peto,  65. 
Grogan  v.  Cooke,  212. 
Grosvenor  v.  Green,  80,  243,  255. 
—         V.    Sherratt,    190,    193, 
311. 
Grove  v.  Bastard,  391. 
Grover  i-.  llugell,  158,  162. 
Grovea  v.  Groves,  375,  376. 

—  V.  Perkins,  95,  101,  392. 
Grylls,  cx-ptrrlc,  158. 
(inbbins  v.  Creed,  184. 
(Jurney  v.  Womersley,  58. 
Guy  V.  Pearkes,  209. 
G Wynne  v.  Ueaton,  187,  344. 


Haicii  It.  llaiijb,  291,  477. 
Hale  V.  AUiHitt,  283. 

—  r.  Saloon  Omnibus  Co.  212. 
Hall  I'.  Conder.  105. 

—  V.  Hall.  184. 

—  V.  llallett,  161,  349. 

—  «■.  Noves,  158. 


302, 


Hall  V.  P<itter,  221. 

—  »•.  Smilli.  212. 

Hallows  i:  I'.rnie.  f.l,  74,  95,  391. 
Haincr  v.  Til-li-y.  1. •:.'(. 
Haniilt<jn  v.  f^a  I.  371. 

—  V.  (J rant,  :m4. 

—  V.  Ivirwan,  3K4. 

—  •■.  i:<.y>e,  236,  241.  242,  269. 

—  r.  Watson,  122,  123. 

—  >:  \Vrii,'lit.  151.  15S.  1.59. 
Hnnmicrsley  r.  !»<•  Bid,  H'.i,  90,  136,  842, 
Hampden  ;•.  Jlam|)il«'n,  27'i. 
llamj)-liire  r.  Pcirc<',  4  19. 

Ilampson  r.  Ibimpson,  3.'i4. 
Hanbiiry  v.  Litclitield,  214. 
Hankey  i'.  Vernon,  4o7. 
Hannah  j'.  Hodijson.  118. 
Haiminuton  v.  l)u  Cliat>  I,  222. 
Hanson  ;•.  Keatiiii;.  5"_'.  ;;;i5,  336. 
Harbidf^c!  v.  \Vo;^aii,  428. 
Harbin  v.  Darby,  156. 
Hareourt  v.  Wliitc,  129,  304. 
Hardini:  r.  Wickbam,  29ii,  292. 
Hardinghani  r:  NicboUs,  318,  319,  870 
llardman  v.  Booth,  49. 

—  V.  Ellames,  370. 
Hare  v.  Horwood,  4o7. 
Hargreave  v.  Everard,  194. 
Har^'reaves  i\  llithwell,  259. 
Harnian  r.  liichards,  199,  201. 
Harnett  v.  Yeilding,  412. 
Harris  )•.  Ingledew,  370. 

—  V.  Kemble,  78,  93,  95,  358,  359, 

—  V.  IVpperell,  414,  454,  455. 

—  r.  Pickett.  283. 

—  V.  Trenienheere,  170. 
Harrison,  ex-parle,  ICiO.  161. 

—  V.  l"op|)ard.  323, 

—  V.  Forth,  316. 

—  V.  Gardiner,  356. 

—  V.  Guest,  183,  186,   189.    191, 

192,  238,  371. 

—  V.  Randall,  273. 

—  V.  Mayor,  itc.  of  Southampton, 

294. 
Harrod  r.  Ilarrod,  146. 
Harrynian  r.  Collins,  250,  254. 
Hart't'.  Windsor,  104. 
Hartopp  /■.  Ilartopp,  180.  191,  352,  391. 
Hartwtll  /'.  Colvin,  :;04.  305. 

—  V.  Hartwell.  222. 
Harvey  v.  Cooke,  125,  404. 

—  V.  Mount,  193,  393. 

—  f.  Shclton,  292,  293, 

—  V.  Youns-.  83,  S4,  85. 
Harwood  v.  Tooke,  222,  224. 
Hasell,  cjr-j.nrW,  3n7. 
Hastie  i:  Couturier,  40r,. 
Hateh  v.  liateh,  177,  178,  306. 

—  I'.  Sear'es,  21>>. 
Haven  v.  Foster,  4uJ. 


10 


TAUl.i:  nf    INCl.lSIl   CA8i:S  ciTi:i». 


IlawkiiM  f.  Bone.  147- 

llnwiov  «•.  <Ymn.r.  li'.O.  Ifl8.  IfiO.  224. 

Hnv.       ■       <       wv.  ft7.  82.  n2.'.. 

lla\u  •;  :rt,  77,  78,  8:},  95.  3:>9. 

Htuani  r.  Irwin,  r»4. 
IIc«(I  r.  Co.llof.  181. 
Ileaoe  r.  Uo^^m.  l»'.'. 
Heap  r.  Tonye.  224. 
Ilfathcoalc  c  rnii^non,  187. 
llomin:;  >•.  Swinrrton,  28'J. 
lIomint;\V)iy  ■.  Iliiinilton,  88. 
Ileininer  r.  Coopir,  S8. 
lIcniKTSoii  V.  Cook.  4n7. 

—  V.  lln<l!ion,  f.2.  359. 

—  r.  Lncon.  47,  48,  08,  CO,  85, 

11(1,  :i2r..  .'!(■.'.). 

—  t:  Koynl  Hriti.-li  Unnk,  330. 
llcnli'v  f.  Stono,  ;;74. 

lIonnc(inin  »•.  Niivlor.  109,  386. 
Jlorbcrt  v.  lUilkU-v.  41. 
Hercy  v.  Dinwooiiy,  :;u3. 
Hern  V.  Nidiolls,  112. 
Heme  v  Mceres,  151. 
Heron  v.  Heron,  182,  298. 
Hervcy  v.  Hervey.  4  10. 

—       r.  Siiiitli.  217. 
Hes«e  V.  Briant,  105.  17^). 
Hewitt  V.  Loosomore,  141,  237,  251,  256, 

200,  262. 
IK'wlins  r.  Sliipliam,  134. 
Hicliens  v.  {'on^reve.  373. 
Hick  V.  Piiilipps,  302. 
Hickt-s  V.  Cooke,  102,  194,  303,  304,  305, 

3ort, 
Hicks  V.  MoraiiK  309. 
Ilickson  V.  Loinhnrd,  383. 
Hiern  v.  Mill,  2:!4.  248,  251. 
Hi;^tfins  r.  Joyce,  105. 

—       r.  S.ninels.  78,  82,  83.  357,  369. 
Hi^nson  v.  (  lowc*.  359,  412. 

—  r.  Kelly.  287. 
HiSfinbothnni  v.  Holme,  280,  287. 
Hill,  fxpirU.  1C2,  287. 

—  f.  Hiukley.  05.  80,  3G1. 

—  r.  (iray.  88,  93. 

—  f.  Man<h.>;tiT  Waterworks  Co.  388. 

—  V.  S\i\i\triiu.  2;i9. 

—  9.  Soiitli  Stuironlshire  UuUw.iy  Co., 

130. 
Hills  r.  ]»ownfon.  413. 

—  V.  i;..\vliiii-l.  42S. 
Hinchinbrooke.  I.onl  v.  Seymour.  208. 
Ilimle'a  L<'(«Hees  r.  I.oni^wortli,  200. 
Hindfwn  v.  WeatliiM ill,  171. 

nine  r.  I>o.l.l.  239. 
Hinlon  r.  Hinton.  1H4. 
Hiornii  r.  HoiiU'»n.  l.'iS. 
Hipkinn  »•.  Amerv.  251. 
Aliul.cock  r,  Gi'ddlns*.  400,  430,  432, 
4&fi. 


Hitrliln  V.  Orooni.  417. 
Jlolibs  V   Norton.  92.  3n. 
Holi.JHy  ••.  IVlers.  171.  171.  175.  177. 
Hoil^'kiiiHon  f.  I'cniie.  4  18. 
Ho<l;;^on.  rr-/>firli\  PW. 

—  I',  bean.  205. 
Hojjxjo  V.  Hurtjesn,  447.  418. 
Ho;,'liton  V.  Ho<;lilon,  152.  180,  182,  845, 

3s7. 
Holl.ird  »'.  .\nderson,  212. 
Holilernesl  f.  Katikin.  liOS. 
lloUowny  r.  Heading'"".  -'^^• 

—  r.  Millard.  199.  2ii7,  208. 
Holman  r   Loyncn,    153.    159,   163,    166, 

100.  107,  17<>.  17.'.,  371. 
Holiues  V.  Co^rliill.  439. 

—  V.  Cnslanee.  449.  450. 

—  r.  renn.v,  2<>0,  2t>l,  203,  207. 

—  r.  I'owelf.  244,  215. 
Holmes'  K-tate,  J;,;  170,  380. 
Holt  !•.  Holt.  151. 

Holt's  Case,  110. 
Holwortliy  v.  Mortlock,  407. 
liolymnn,  r.r-/xtrlr,  101. 
Homier  v.  .M.>rton,  'Jno,  801. 
Hood  V.  Oirlandcr.  412. 
Hooper  r.  Clark,  132. 

—  V.  (tumm,  130. 

—  f.  Smith,  281. 
Hopei;.  Liddell.  241. 
Hopirood  «'.  KrnoAt,  141,  251. 
Hopkins  I'.  Tanqueray,  70. 
Ho|ikinson  t'.  Uult.  321. 
Hore  »'.  r.efli<r.  loo,  431. 
Horn  I'.  Horn,  2o9. 

—  J'.  Kilkenny  itc.  Hallway  Co.  278. 
Hornby  v.  .Mateliain,  275. 

Horsfall  v.  Tlioinas,  95,  100. 

Horton    v.    Westminster    Improvement 

Commissioners,  388. 
Hotcbkiss  t'.  Dickson,  121. 
llotKon  V.  IJrowne.  93,  3S8. 
Honj:li  V.  Uicbardson.  01.  74,  77,  78. 
Houi;litun  v.  Lees,  2J3,  431. 
llovenden  v.   Lord   Anucslev,    191,  301, 

307,  314. 
How  r.  Welilon,  ISS.  191,  318,  322. 
Howard  v.  Castle,  225. 

—  t'.  Cliairers,  257. 

—  V.  Ducane,  102. 

—  I'.  Karl  of  Shrewsbury,  288. 
Ilowden  I'.  Hai<;h,  215. 

Howell  V.  Hnker.  lOS. 

—  V.  Howell,  31H. 
Howkins  i>,  ,laekHon,  433,  434. 
Howland  e.  .Norris,  02,  339,  301,  303. 
Hubbard  v.  nri:,'(;«.  5*8.5. 

Hudson  t>.  Iteauehaiii]),  140. 
Hu-heH,    fx-ifirtf,     101,    172,    174,    3(0, 
:U'.t. 

—  r  (Jarncr,  258,  313,  307,  370. 


t.\i;m;  oi'  i'Nclisii  casiis  ciikd. 


U 


Hughes  t'.  Caith,  '.'.>'<'.<. 

—  »'.  Ilowanl,  'J77. 

—  I'.  Jones,  :!((I. 

—  .'.  W.-lls,  41n. 
IliUjuonin  v.  l{u«K'y,  M,  is;i,  198. 
Iluletl'aCiise,  '.V>',\. 

Hume  V.  I'ocock-.  83,  .ISfl. 
Iluiiiplircy  V.  Olver,  UC.K,  .'(85,  38(1. 
lliiin|ilircy.s  v.  I'cn^ftui,  2'2'.>. 
lliini]iliii",'«  I',  lloruo,  I'-M,  l.'''". 
lltiiisili'ii  V.  Clicytii'V,  l"!',  i:;l. 
Hunt  V.  Kllllc■^i,  "ill,"  U5G. 

—  r.  Hort.  452. 

—  V.  Matthews,  218,  275. 

—  r.  Mortimer,  2S(5. 

Hunter  v.  Atkins,  170,  IVG,  177,  101. 
Huteliinson  v.  Alorlcv,  85. 
Hutton  r.  ('ruttwc'il,"28L 

—  V.  lios.^iter,  51,  fiO,  312. 
Hvde  r.  Wliitc,  221. 

Hylton  V.  llyitou,  177,  178. 

iBnoTSos  V.  Rhodes,  130,  132. 

Ingle  V.  Richards,  1 58. 

Inglis  i\  Lumsden,  341. 

Ingram  i-.  Thorii,  48,  S3,  342,  344,  309, 

379. 
Inncs  I'.  Jackson,  427. 

—  Sayer,  4 10. 

Ireland,  Bank  of,  v.  Trustees  of  Evans* 

I'iiarities,  137,  142. 
Irnham,  Lord.  i-.  Child,  428,  429. 
Irvine  r.  Kirkpatrick,  51,  73,  83,  93,  95, 

HG,  125,  Mi',. 
Ives  t'.  Medcalfe,  291,  292. 
Izon  V.  Gorton,  I'U. 

Jackman  v.  Mitcliell,  214,  344,  392. 
Jackson  v.  Jackson,  2t)8. 

—  V.  King,  14(1. 

—  V.  Rowe,  239,  252,  257,  317,  3G9. 
Jacobs  V.  Richards,  145,  146. 

James,  cx-parte,  154,  157,  158,  159,  161, 

165. 
Jameson  v.  Stein,  73,  74,  93,  34a 
Jarvis  I'  Duke,  53. 
Jay  V.  Richardson,  235,  240. 
Jcilerys  *■.  JefTcrys,  2i»3,  445. 
J<'nd\vine  v.  Slaile,  83. 
Jenkins  v.  Jones,  317. 
Jcnkinson  v.  Pepys,  412. 
Jenkyn  v.  Vaui^h'an,  207,  208. 
Jenn(-r  t'.  Jenner,  18(\  181,  182. 
Jennings  v.  liroughton,  54,  73,  74,  75,  76, 

77,  78,  82,  S3,  100,  302,  307,  382, 

3'.to. 
Jerrard  v.  Snuiiders.  313. 
Jewson  I'.  Moulton,  203. 
Johnson  v.  Fesenieyei-,  169,  285. 

—  V.  Gallaglier.  149. 

—  V.  Legard,  230,  232. 


Johnxr.n  r.  ():;ilvv,  16. 

—  V.  1'ye.  i48. 

—  V.  Stuart,  83,  360. 

—  r.  Taher,  77.  78. 
JoneH  V.  Rennr-tt,  293. 

—  II.  Casw.ll,  221. 

—  t'.  Crouclier,  233. 

—  V.  (Jurcia  del  Rio,  378. 

—  V.  (In'gory,  4  1. 

—  V.  Jones,  142. 

—  V.  Just,  l(t5,  107. 

—  V.  Kearney,  148,  235. 

—  V.  Keene,  98. 

—  V.  Marsh,  2<t3. 

—  ♦'.  ilarlin,  217. 

—  V.  Towies,  51,  314,  317, 

—  V.  i'rice,  164,  165. 

—  t'.  I'rovinciul   Insurance   Co.   120, 

122. 

—  V.  Ricketts,  392. 

—  ?'.  Roberts,  166. 

—  V.  Smith,  237,  238,  239,  240,  241, 

244,   247,   251,   252,   254,   255, 
250,  257. 

—  V.  Stanley,  319. 

—  V.  Thomas,  137,  103,  168,  170. 

—  r.  Tripp,  ItJO. 

—  V.  Turberville,  303. 

—  I'.  Williams,  238,  242,  256. 

—  V.  Wright,  107. 
Jordcn  v.  Money,  88,  89. 

Joyce  V.  De  .Moleyns,  313,  320,  321. 
Joynes  t'.  Statham,  417,  418. 

IvATN  V.  Old,  69,  99. 
Kay  V.  Crook,  88,  342, 
—  V.  Smith,  380. 
Kcat  V.  Allen,  222. 
Keates  v.  Lord  Cadogan,  100,  104. 
Keech  v,  Sandford,  154. 
Kellj-  V.  Rogers,  300. 

—  V.  Solari,  4(i0,  414. 
Kel?ali  V.  Bennett,  370. 

Kelson  v.  Kelson,  200,  227,  229,  231. 
Kemp  V.  Piose,  292. 
Kendall,  cx-parte,  425. 

—  V.  lIulLs,  200,  261. 
Kennedy  v.  Daly,  316. 

V,  Green,    137,   138,  238,   248, 
201,  370. 

—  t».  Panama,  «tc.  Co.  58,  69,  60, 

334. 
Kennell  v.  Abbott,  354,  451, 
Kenne}'  v.  Browne,  132,  254,  347. 
Ken.sington,  Lord,  v.  Bouverie,  348. 
Kent  J'.  Freehold  Land  and  Briekmaking 

Co.  80,  <t5,  11(»,  ;;.-,l. 
Ker  i;.  Lord  Dungannon,  250^  317. 
Ke-rick  v.  Bran3l>y,  11. 
KI  Iney  v  Cou  sniitker,  453 
Kiilick  t'.  Flexuey,  101. 


TAIU-K   OF    r.NCI.lSlI    C'ASLIS   CITED. 


King  9.  HnniUton.  '22:t,  :>.'8. 

—  r.  llnmlct.  aU9.  344, 

—  •.  SnviTV.  S43. 

—  w.  WxUo'n.  81).  Sfll. 
KinjTsf.ml  r.  M.rry.  4S.  329. 
KirkwiHul  r.  Tln>Mi|>!<on,  IC'.'. 
Kinvan  r.  (.'ulli-n.  r.>3. 
Ki«oli  r.  (Vnlnil  Vfiurinln  Kni 

Tl».  80.  8'J.  8:i,  S7,  IM.  »:>, 

'J  .'!(>. 

Knntohbull  r.  Crnebor.  64.  »rt2, 
Knight  r.  Howvor.    lt".5.   2:!8.   '. 
3tvt,  .^l>7. 

—  r.  limit,  21.'.. 

—  V.  Marjorilmiiks.  78.  06, 

l.'.l'.  lt;2.  1S2,  18.'>. 
Knowlcs  r.  Iloui;lit<in,  :t7i'. 
Knox  p.  Svmraouils,  447. 


hvn\ 

.  7.\ 

11"", 

111. 

,  363 

2 II'.. 

2  IS, 

i:.2, 

1.'.7, 

hxczr,  ex-partr,  154,  157,  161,  S24,  349. 

—  r.  Ingle. 

Laclilan  r.  Ueynolds.  343,  362. 

l^rkerfitecn  v.  Lackorsteen,  423. 

Ijicon  V.  LilTi-n,  286. 

l.,aitllow  f.  Organ,  91. 

l>ainu  V.  Fidgcun,  107. 

Lairil  r.   IJirkenliead   RniUvay  Co.    120, 

135.  136. 
Lamburt  v.  Lambort.  11»3. 
Lunilce  r.  llannian,  216. 
Lanijihigli  v.  I^midu^li.  184. 
J^anca^UT  i'.  Evors,  371. 
I>ance  v.  Norman,  217. 
Lane  r,  Jackson,  267,  321. 

—  V.  Page,  268,  273. 
I.an-l.'V  V.  V\Aur.  Ill,  354,  300. 
I.iiii^rliliri.'  V.  Li-vy,  373. 
I^aii-^iowne  V.  Laiiadowne,  400. 
J^a^sencc  v.  Tii-rnL-y,  2<i2. 
l.atinicr  v.  Bat.soii.  211. 
Latouche  r.  I.K>riI  Dunsany.  265. 
leaver  v.  FicliK-r.  Oo,  342. 

Law  V.  I>a\v.  2:11.  2  i2,  378. 

1jivv1l-»8  t:  Man-tifM,  163.  166. 

l^iwlcy  r.  Il.K.pcr.  42.  344. 

Lawn-no*  i'.  OaKwcirlliv,  l.'>8. 

1  .awrcnci-'rt  la-i-.  61,  70.  263,  302.  3i»7. 

l,awTiMi'«>n  I',  liutirr.  44o. 

Lnwlon  r.  Canii.ii'n.  401,  43t. 

l.avar.i  r.  .Maiiti,  137,  141. 

|..-...li  r.  Mullflt,  63. 

L.iiki'  r.  Youni;. 'J8I.  2H3. 

l..akin.'«  r.  CliM-ll.  84,  85. 

LeallitT  Cloth  Co.  I'.  Am.  riiaii   L.atlitr 

Cloth  Co.,  392,  303. 
],oo  V.  AngnH,  50. 

—  r.  Ki-rnie.  271. 

—  V.  Marl.  281. 

...  .b.n.M.  00.  \2i.  \i:\. 

—  V.  I».klart.  214. 


Lciil!*.  Duke  of.  v.  Lonl  Amherst.  129, 

208.  209.  »0l,  804. 
LctiN  r.  Niitall.  175. 
L.-CU'-  »•.  Croki.r.  62.  02. 
l.filtliililN  CiiMf,  868, 
L.-iirh  r.  Llovil,  234.  240. 
L«  Novo  V.  I'm  Nevo.  260,  266. 
Leonard  r.  LiM.nard.  124.401,434. 
Len.w  I'.  Wiliuarlli.  206. 
Leslie  r.  I'.aiilie,  4t>2. 

—  r.  Th..nii.*>n,  62.  67,  368,  365. 
Lester  V.  (iarlaiul,  2S7. 

Leuty  r.  Ililla.^  407,413,419,  437,454. 
Lewis,  iT-piiitf,  340. 

—  r.  M..nd.  243. 

—  V.  llillinan.  1.58.  166,  173,  174, 

—  I'.  .lones.  00,  215. 

—  I'.   I'ead,  101. 

—  r.  lUe-.  220,  230. 

L.-yland  v.  illini:w..rth,  82,  86,339,  390. 

Leibman  r.  llareourt.  3113.  321, 

Life  Association  of  Scotland  r.  Siddall, 
200.  3(»1.  303.  305,  307. 

Lifjijins  V.  Inge.  134. 

Lijjlitfoot  ?•.  Heron.  147. 

Lillie  V.  Leirh,  135. 

Lincoln  V.  Wright.  i:'.5. 

Lind.nau  v.  l.esborough,  110,  120,  122, 

I.iiido  v.  Lindo,  208. 

Liiidon  V.  Sharp,  211, 

Lindsay  i'.  Cibb.s,  127, 

Linehaii  v.  Cotter,  64,  343,  362. 

Lingood  J'.  Crouch,  200. 

Lister  i-.  Turner.  23ii. 

Liverpool   A.lelphia  Association  v.  Fair- 
hurst,  MS. 

Livinfxst.ine  v.  Ilendc,  2(i.5. 

Llowellin  r.  Cbbold.  170.  217, 
_       V.  Miickworlh.  384. 
—        I'.  I'ace.  47. 

Lloyd  V.  Atwood.    125.    100,    260,    298, 
3uO.  324. 

—  r.  Brewster.  331. 

—  r.  Clarke,  47.  103. 
_     r.  Coek.-r,  421. 

—  V.  I'a.ssinirlian",  125,  312.  314. 
Load  t'.  Green,  328, 

Loader  v.  Clark,  217,  220,  302,  390. 

Locke  r.  I'rescott.  240. 

Lt.irus  V.  .Maw.  SO.  on. 

L'.Tnix  V.  Kiplev.  270.  :!S'j. 

London.  K.u.k  of.  r.  Tyrr.ll.  347.  3.V>. 

L(»ndoii  and  nirmingham  Uailway  Co.  r. 

Winter.  4  IK. 
L<indoii  ;\ssnran«v  Co.  p.  M<»hcs,  46.  S.'S.'i. 
Lonilonderry    and    Knni'kilh-n   Uailway 

Co.  I'.  I..4'islinian.  20ii. 
Loiigmalo  p.  Ledger,  146,  l.Vt.  I'.tn,  344, 

371 
Lor.:ineiil  v.  Ilolliday.  373, 
l.ion.'da  e,  b.rd,  p.  Liltlednle,  290. 


TAliLi:   «)F    i;N(iI-lSll    CASI.S    ClTi;!). 


Loril  V.  lIiidiTiloiick,  K!'>. 

i.ovi-:!  .'.  MicUs.  '.1.!.  li:.,  :ioj.  :iii,  yr.o. 

Lovit'iiIl;"  I'.  C'lioptr,  11  ;i. 

L')wii(l<.s  <'.  IjUIii',  70,  77,  78,  ^1,  'Jl,  1'-. 

Lowtlicr  /'.  ('arltmi,  iHti. 

—  I'.  Lowtlicr,  17U. 
Loxley  r.  llcatli,  H!i, !»(). 
Lnciis  f.  Worswitk,  loO. 
Ltii'ciia  V.  Liifi'iia,  41 2. 
LiK'V,  rr-/>artt\  KM. 

Luffr.  Lord,  i')?,  ;is:{,  aoo. 
Lund  I'.  IJIaiiihard,  :!7.'5,  .S80. 
Luttrull ./.  Oliiiiiis,  271. 
Lyddon  i'.  Moss,  lt>:{,  1G4,  1G5,  a02,305, 
ao7. 

Lydc  /•.  iMynn,  221. 

Lyiie  y.  Lyne,  ;iC)'.t. 

Lyon  v.  11(111)0,  18U,  191,  193,  391,  392. 

Lysney  p.  Selby,  75,  78,  80,  82,  85. 

Maber  v.  Ilobbs,  259. 

jrAIpino  v.  Swift,  430,  455. 

Macartliy  ?-.  Di-fui.v,  398,  401,  400. 

M'Ulair  r.  (Jibbes,  379. 

Wacbridi'  v.  I^indsa}-,  355. 

M'Jiryde  v.  Wcekos,  302. 

M'Burnic,  cx-partc,  202. 

M'Cnbe  v.  IIiissov,  171. 

M'Cullocli  )'.  GroVory,  92,  255,  343,  350. 

M'Diarmid  v.  M'Diarmid,  190,  194. 

Macdoiia  v.  Switu-y,  211. 

Matdoiialil  v.  .Macdonald,  307. 

W'Doiiiiell  V.  Wliite.  307,  309. 

Wackeilar  c.  Wallace,  12.'). 

M'Keniia,  Re.  157. 

M'Kinnell  v.  Itobinson,  374. 

Maclure  v.  Uipli'}',  95,  182. 

M'Ncill  )'.  Cniiill,  191,  214,  217. 

M'Queon  v.  Farqiiliar,  254,  310,  384,  392. 

Macretli  v.  Syiiions,  234. 

Maddeford  r.  Aiistwick,  125,  182. 

Maddox  V.  JIaddox,  258. 

Madolcy  v.  Booth,  02.  64,  362,  363. 

Bladen  V.  Vcevcrs,  302. 

Madrid  Bank,  lie,  95. 

Mai,'cnni.s  v.  I'aikui,  302,  363. 

Maitland  v.  Backhouse,  178.  230,  238. 

—  V.  Irving,  1  78,  254. 
Jlajor  f.  ^lajor,  12t). 

Sla'lden  v.  Meiiill,  397,  433,  430. 

JIaict  lie,  429. 

Maliiis  V.  Freeman,  412,  455. 

M;illalieu  v.  Uoduson,  388. 

Malincsbury  v.  Mabncsbury,  419,  437. 

Maljias  v.  Acklaiul,  241. 

Man  )•.  AVard,  3s,'^.,  381. 

Mani)y  t'.  Bewicke,  140. 

Mangles  v.  Dixon,  130,  236,  322. 

—  V.  Grand  Dock  Colliery  Co.,  290 
Manning  v.  Albee,  84. 

—  V.  Lechiuere,  383. 


Miiiiniiif^Cord  »».  T'llctiuiii,  221. 
.Man.ser  c.  Back,  411,  413,  418.  455. 
.Manser's  Ca.'tc.  390. 
.March  V.  Lee,  324. 
.Marc  I'.  iMalachy,  381. 

—  V.  Sandford,  214. 

—  V.  Warni-r,  211. 
Marjoriiianks/'.  Ilovcndcn,  259,200,201. 
Marker  v.  .Marker,  132. 

Mar.silcn'.s  Tru.'^t,  lU;  208,  209,270,271, 

385. 
Mnrslmll  v.  Cdlett,  397,  433. 

—  V.  8laddt!n.  300,  394. 

Martin  «.  Cotter.   18,   19,  243,  244,255, 
339,  3(i0. 

—  V.  Martin,  228. 

—  n.  Mitciicll,  357. 

—  V.  Mor^^an.  99. 

—  V.  I'ycroft,  147,  304.  305,  418. 

—  V.  yedgwick,  112. 
.Martindale  v.  Boolli,  2lo,  211. 
-Martinez  v.  Coo])er,  141. 
.Marvin  v.  Bennett,  07. 
Ma.son  v.  Armitai^e,  412. 

—  V.  Cro.sliy,  77,  78. 
Ma.ssey  j-.  Davie.s,  172,  174. 
filasson  I'.  liovet,  337. 
Masters  v.  Ibberson,  331. 
Matthew  v.  Bri.se,  178,  306,  311. 
Matliiie  r.  Edwards,  170. 

Maturin  «  Tredcnnick,  88, 175,  330,337, 

310,  350. 
Maundrell  v.  Maundrell,  313. 
JIaunsell  v.  Hedges,  89,  90.  93,  342. 
Maxwell  v.  Port  Tenant  Steam  Fuel  Co.. 

172. 
May  r.  Chapman,  330. 
ila^'hew  V.  Eames,  259. 
.Mayiiard  i'.  Moselcy,  4o7. 
Meadows   v.    Meadows,   410,  414,   430, 

454. 
Medbury  v.  Watson,  84,  85. 
Meddowcroft  v.  Ilngnenin,  294. 
Medwin  v.  Sandhani,  4  10. 
Mellers  v.  Duke  of  Devonshire,  397. 
Mellish  V.  Mellish,  178,  449. 

—       V.  Motteux,  100. 
Mercer  v.  Peterson,  281,  283. 
Meredith  v.  Saunders,  180,  189. 
Merewether  v.  Shaw,  00,  69,  73. 
Mertins  i'.  JollifTe.  241.  310. 
.Mestaer  v.  (Tillespic,  275,  444. 
Metcalfe,  Rr,  193. 

—  V.  Pulverton,  230. 
Meux's  Executors'  Case,  115. 
iliddlecombe  v.  Marlow,  203, 
Middleton  r.  Middlcton,  isi,  195,  273. 

—  I'.  Sherburn.  184,  19.3. 
Midland  Great  AVe.-itern    Ilailway   Co., 

ol  Ireland  i'.  Johnson,  397. 
Mildinay  i'.  llungerford,  401. 


u 


TAllLi:    t>r    MNCl.lSIl    CASl'.S    (  lTi;i) 


>!•!.■ 


!)   1--V.  247. 

,     •   ■.  :Mrt.  a47. 

A        .'.•S,  414.  430. 


M  .  1.   ,.  \.  i^'  SocU'tv.  447,  -146. 

M'  ;..r  V.  Milii.  r.  448,449. 
N.  :  .-,•  r.  lVt«Ts.  ;i7".>. 
^;.;    hull  .-.  Llov.l.  -Jio. 
^l.•   'h  11  r.  Sli'wurd.  '1^2. 
">:  \  I's  Inso.  4N.  1 17.  :{;''tv 
M   .  :ittn  V.  Muri:ntniy»l,  'J'>1. 
M  ••  lis  t:  ll<-vwiirtl>.  .'lO,  72. 
M.  .:^'  r.  HakiT.  •J^^.. 
M    i;m'lix.  r/-/»./i7r.  IGl. 
M.  I.i  V.  \Vlu:itrroft,  'ir>\ . 
MoK.ny   r.    Kirnnn,    152.   173,249,318, 
37t'. 

—  f.  L'Kslranso.  1  •>■">.  297,  300. 
MolUm  r.  Cainrtiux.  1  l.'i.  14  7. 
Monro  r.  Taylor.  419,  4:J2. 
Moiitefiorc  i!  l^rownc.  239.  242. 
Moiitifiori  V.  MonU'fiori.  342. 
Moiitf.^qMimi   r.  Sanilys,   105,    108,   170, 

:;r,o.  :f'.ii. 

Moodie  r.  llfid.  410. 
Moor  V.  Bi-nuflt,  241. 
Moore  V.  Frowil,  156. 

—  V.  Jorvis,  323. 

—  V.  Mnyhow,  319,  370. 

—  f.  Moore,  402. 

—  r.  rrance.  105.  380,  387,  394. 

—  f.  llyfaiilt.  203. 
Morecock  v.  Dkken.s,  204. 
Mott  laml  i:  riuharilr^oii,  247. 
Mor;5UU,  fx-parle,  lt>2,  349. 

—  V.  HriU'ii,  392. 

—  I'.  Evans,  100. 
— »    V.  Hif^ijins,  105. 

—  v.  L<'wcs,  100.  307. 

—  r.  Mather,  447. 
.Moriand.  cj- jxirtr,  lf,(t. 
Morky  I'.  Atteiil)oroiii;li,  I05. 

—  V.  Clnvcrinfj,  244.  257. 

—  f.  lUiiiiolil.-jon.  453. 
Morphett  r.  Jones,  135. 
.Morrttt  V.  I'oske,  324. 
Morris  v.  (MarkBon.  210, 

—  V.  Li  vie.  322.  323. 

—  V.  MCiillo.h.  222. 

—  r.   Venalilf's,  284. 
Morris  Canal  Co.  v.  Knmiett,  07. 
MorBC    r.    Itoval,    157.    159,    187.    190, 

297. 
Mortimer  v.  IJ.U,  220. 

—  V.  Cappfr,  432. 

—  f.  Orclianl.  450. 

—  V.  .Sliiirtali.  422,  423.  454.  455. 
M'"-*  V.  IJainhrik"^'"-.  100,  108,  109. 

\'      -iiforil  r.  Sr»  U.  259. 

i     s.itt  r.  lilake   382. 
Mosey  V.  Bigwootl,  412,  455. 


Miickl.'st..n  I.  Urown,  279. 
MufTjeritlije    »•.    Kew    lirunswick.  Ac, 

lU  Iwuy  Co.,  93,  90,  1  H». 
Miilhull.n  V.  Moruni,  173,  177,  179.  297. 

340,  347,  350,  390. 
Mnlvany  v.  I)inon.  lOO. 
Miiininery  i'.  Paul,  r.20. 
Mtindav  «'.  Knijjlit,  800. 
Miindyr.  Joliiire.  135,  ISO. 
Miirpliy.  r/-;»ii7<,  287. 

—  V.  Abruhuin,  200.  207. 

—  r.  ()'.^hen,  173,  171,  347. 
Murray  v.  iJnrlee,  148. 

—  V.  Mnnn,  332,  383, 

—  r.  rainier,  50,  isO,  190,  297,  303, 

31t».  312,  340.  347,  350. 

—  r.  I'arker,  419,  455. 

—  V.  Pinkett,  323. 
Myers  v.  Watson,  357,  304,  390. 

Naole  f.  Baylor,  147,  302. 

Nanno}'  v.  Williams,  171,  274. 

Nantes  v.  Corroek,  209. 

Nu.sh  r.  AsIj,  379. 

National    As^suranco    Association,     /Ce, 

239,  242. 
National   Exehanijo  Conipanv  v.  Drew. 

78,   83,  93,  115,  110,  11*7,  118,  300, 

373. 
National  Life  Assurance  and  Investment 

Association.  7»V,  254. 
Naylor   i-.   Winch,   152,   398,   4u4,  434. 

454. 
Ncalc  V.  Day,  2iiO. 

—  t'.  Nealf,  404.  434. 
Neap  I'.  Aljliott.  412,  435,  450. 
Neatc  r.  Hall,  331. 

Nedby  f.  Nedby.  193. 

Necsom  v.  Clarkson,  210,  241,  257,  311. 

335,  340,  347. 
NfUis  V.  Clark,  374,  375. 
Nelson  v.  l)nnconibo.  145. 

—  V.  Stocker.  75.  70,  79,  14S. 
Nelthorpe    v.    llolgate,     100,    214,    247, 

304. 

—  V.  I'ennvnian.  100.  349. 
Ne.'«l>ilt  1:  UiTridVe,  171.  308,  3V4. 
Neville  V.  Wilkin.-.<.M,  210.  IMl. 

New    Hruuswiek,    itc..    Uailway   Co.   9. 

Conybeare.  74,  70.  77.  83.92,  111. 

1 12.*1 16,  1 10,  1 17,  1  is.  320,  300,  390. 
New    Hrunswick.    Ac..    Uailway    Co.    r. 

Miii,'i;erid:re,  80,  it5,  lo'.),  359. 
Newbnr;;)!  ••.  Ne\vbur;^li,  452. 
Newliaiii  I'.  May,  45. 
.Newman  v.  raytie,  103,  100,  170,  344. 
.Niriioll  V.  .lones,  15o. 
Nicliolls  1:  lyeson,  4" '-J. 

—  r.  Nieliolls.  1S4. 

—  I'.  Pinner.  109. 

—  1:  lloe,  289,  290. 


TA15L1:    or    KNCl.lsn    CASI.S   ('ITi:i). 


15 


Niiholn  V.  ClKiili"-.  'J'.td. 

—  V.  llatK-iK'k,  TXi. 

—  r.  riiiiu'i",  UK,'). 
Nicliolson  V.  Il<)i>|i(r,  llio,  132. 
Js'U'fil  I".  N'mi'^xliHii,  17<i. 
jN'iiMill  t'.  (  limiilii'iH.  07. 

Kicoll's  C';iM-,  IS.  71.  75.  O:!,  Ill,  115, 
110,  117.  lis,  1:57,  :1I7,  '-'.'M. 

Nioll  V.  Morl.v,  M."). 

Nivon  I'.  15ill;iiii|>,  127. 

Nixiiii  V.  HmiiiliDii,  l"Jl,  251),  201,  200. 

Nock  V.  Niwiiian.  III^. 

Nokfs  V.  Wliartoii.  l<il. 

Korciitt  )'.  Doilil,  20l» 

Norfolk.  Duke  of.  v.  Worthy,  0.3.  82. 

North  IJrilish  Insuranco  Co.  1;.  Llo^-d, 
122. 

Norton  v.  Rclly,  193. 

Norway  i'.  Kowe,  202. 

Nottr.  Hill,  188,  189. 

Nottriil;,'e  v.  I'rince,  lO.I. 

Nuun  V.  Fiibian,  129,  130. 

Oakes  v.  Tiirqunnd,  48,  49,  94,  112,  110, 

307,  330,  330. 
O'Brien  v.  Lewis,  170. 
O'Fav  V.  Biirkc.  129,  133.    . 
t):,'ilvic  V.  JealVreson,  50,  51,    139.  2C0, 

201,  202.  :;12,  314,  315,  317,  345. 
Okill  t'.  Wliittaker.  433,  454. 
Oldham  v.  Hand.  170. 

—  V.  Litchlield.  275. 
Oldia  V.  Sambourn,  177. 
Oliver,  ex-par tc,  215. 
Xtlliver  I'.  Court,  305,  300. 
Olivant  v.  Bayley.  107.  410. 
Olliver  v.  Kins,  "l 27,  130. 

O'Neil  V.  Haiiiil,  178,  298,  310,  311. 

Onions  v.  Tyrer,  453. 

On.'slow  )'.  Corrie,  277. 

Oriental  Bankin;j  Co.  v.  Coleman,  282. 

Ornies  v.  Beadel,  293,  299. 

Ormrod  v.  Huth,  57,  325. 

Orr  ti.  Union  Bank  of  Scotland,  139. 

Osborne  v.  Williams.  222,  288,  377. 

Osmond  v.  Fitzruy,  140,  194. 

Overton  u.  Bannister,  382. 

Ovey  I'.  Lei^hton,  370. 

OwJn  I'.  Homaii.  122,  123,  236,  237. 

Oxwiek  V.  Brockett,  437. 

Oxwith  !'.  Blummer,  247. 

Page  v.  HorDe.  193. 
Bain  »■.  Coombs,  135. 
Paine  v.  Hall.  275,  279. 
Painter  c.  Newl)y,  303,  365. 
Palmer  i'.  Neave,  215. 

—  V.  Wheeler,  241,  268,  377. 
Pares  v.  Pares,  384. 

Parker  v.  lll-xam.  298,  310. 

—  V.  Carter,  229. 


Parker  v.  (lark.-.  Is.".,  321 

—  V.  TiiHwell,  412,  42H,  4B4. 

—  V.  Whyte,  257.  317. 
Parkes  1;   White,  102. 
PurkiuHun  v.  Hanhury,  15U,  317. 

—  I'.  Bee.  lot;. 
Parncll  )■.  Tyler,  171. 
Parr  /.  .Jewell,  3S3. 

—    V.  Love;;r<ive,  39ii,  392. 
Parsdii.s  V.  Parsons,  419. 
Partridfje  v.  Steven.'*,  40l. 

—  I'.  U.'<b<>rne,  311. 
Pasley  c.  Freeman,  324,  325,  339. 
Piileli"  V.  Wanl,  3.'.3. 

I'atcnt  File  Co..  </ jmrtc  White,  :;.'i2,  39fi. 
Paul.son  V.  Wellington,  21b. 
Paxton  V.  Pojihan),  3.SH. 
i'ayuc  V.  Comiiton,  320. 

—  1'.  Hornby,  284. 
I'eacock  v.  Evans,  344. 

—  V.  Kernot,  192. 
Pearson  v.  Benson,  105,  109, 
Peel  V.  ,  184,  193. 

—  i'.Lo;;jgon,  184. 
Peel's  Ca.se,  3o7. 
Pelly  V.  Ba.scombe,  847. 
Peniber  v.  Mather,  3S9. 
I'endleLurv  v.  Walker,  21.5. 
Pennell  r.  Reynolds,  281,  282,  283. 
Pennin^^on  v.  Beechc}',  370. 
Penny  c.  Watts,  253. 

Pcrens  v.  Ji.hn.son,  100,  182. 
Perfect  V.  Lane,  81. 
Perkes,  ix-parfe,  101. 
Perrins  ;•.  Marine  Insurance  Co.,  73. 
I'errv  '■•  Holl,  230,   254,   250,   200,  201, 
202. 

—  V.  Meddowcroft,  294. 

IVrrv  llerrick  v.  AttwooJ,  137.  140,  141. 

227,  240,  251. 
Persse  v.  Persse,  434. 
Peter  v.  Russell,  140,  141. 
Peto  V.  Hammond,  249.  251,  317. 
Petre  v.  Espinasse,  199. 
Petts.  7iV,  449. 

Peyton  V.  Bladwell.  210,  222. 
Pliilipi's  V.  Duke  of  Bucks,  358. 

—  V.  Chamberlaine,  448,  449. 

—  V.  Evans.  44  7. 

—  V.  Philipps.  321.  322,  .309,  371. 
Philippson  v.  Lorl  Egrcmont,  293. 
Philipson  V.  Kerry,  4  29.  455. 
Philpotts  I'.  Philpotts,  375. 

Phi])|ien  v.  Stiekney,  225. 
Piekard  v.  bears,  54. 
Pickering  v.  Dowson,  99. 

—  V.   Pickering,    12.'),    101.   404, 

434. 

—  V.  Lord  Stamford,  305. 
Pickett  V.  Loggou,   184,   190,  277,  345, 

347,  354. 


m 


tai;li:  of  i:n(;i.isii  casus  cnr.n. 


I'i.klo.4  r.  rirkl.s.  ".SI.  .185. 
1*1.  U^t.x-k  r   L\>tir.  •-•rj. 
PidfiMk  V.  lU!<i)<n»,  I'l'A. 

lipjidl  f.  IViirico,  IIA.  4I.'>. 

r.  Strnttiin.  M,  Kt».  I'ifi,  lU'i*".. 

l*ike  r.  Vlp?r(«.  Hi,  Its-I. 

rUliii-  V.  Arm>tn.;o.  i:;:i.  i:?«.  .S89. 

l-im  r.  Ii.*:ill,  '.'H. 
I'inir  r.  Ik-attio.  It". I. 
I'inkott  V.  Wnirlit.  :!2:J. 
ril.luT  I'.  Uii;bv,  li'.". 
riiitninoiu-  r.  Staph'.  376. 
I'latt  f.  Uniina};.-.  I'l-'. 

rii'ilgc  I-.  151189,  :;".•;(. 

rioml.rU-.illi  I.  1-Vasor.  ICr..  :i02. 
I'Kws  ami  Mi.ldl.  ton,  A>.  'J'.M,  29-2. 
riunih  r.  Flintt,  2.M.  'IM.  'Jtl. 
l\Mlinoro  r.  (iutminir.  '-7.'),  ^54. 
r<.ill..n  V.  Mnrtin,  171. 
I'ollii!!  V.  Wnltor.  M.  -M.  n2«. 

roolo  f.  siicrir'iiti,  ;u>i. 

Poolov  ••.  lii-dWii,  :5'.Hi. 

—  ■    r.  tiuilter,  ir.l. 

I'opc  V.  Garlumi,  80.  1»2.  213,  255,  25f., 

3f.l. 
I'opliam  V.  Brook.',  US,  192. 

—       V.  Kxliain.  l.'iS. 
PortJirlin'rtoii,  Lord,  r  Soulby.  370. 
Torllaml.  Dukf  of,  v.  Topiiniii,  272. 
I'.Ttii.an,  Lord,  »■.  Mill.  •'•"'.  ■'>*'<\. 
P..rtiiior«'.  Loril,  r.  Morris,  42S,  456. 
Fott  V.  Tmlliuntor,  2'm>. 
I'otts  r.  Siur.  1S«>.  18-2,  2H7,  306. 
P.mlsoii  r.  \Vclliiv.;ton,  218,  441. 
Powell  r,  Dillon.  244,  246. 

r.  I>oubl»U',  »'.:(. 

r.  Lovc'.;rovt>,  135. 

—  f.  Thomas.  129. 
Fowls  r.  AiKlrcws,  44. 

_    r.  Hardin;:.  'MO. 
Powhs  V.  ]'»(;»•,  2r>2. 
Pratt  r.  Hark.r,  I'.M,  l'.t2,  193. 
Prendirtfast  ••.  Turton,  3U2,  306,  807. 
Prevoat  f.  (Jratz,  IC.o. 
Price  t'.  l{«Trinu'ton,  145,  383. 

_    V.  Hrii-t',  4. -.3. 

—  V.  .loiH's,  447. 

—  r.  Lev.  421,  4. '.5. 

_    f.  Miicaulay.  •■2,    69,    74.    1i^.    79. 
:t.'(K,  359,  3tll. 

—  f.  North,  62.  361,  363. 
_  .'.  Price,  191,  193,  195. 
f.  Suhi-ltnrn,  135. 

Priddv  '••  Ko«c,  322. 

Prid.aiix  .'.  lAHmMc.  161,  182,190,  194. 

'j-jit,  :i92. 
t  ri'lliaiM  f.  PhilippH,  291, 
Prince  of  Walfn  A.'4Hurniice  Co  i-.  PulnuT, 

2i80. 


Pritchard   v.  Merchaut.s"   Life  Asmiraiicc 

Socii'tv,  121.  43<i. 
Prltt  I-.  Chiy,  431,  434. 
Prohy  I".  Landor,  440. 
Procter  V.  I'oopor,  257,  265,  267. 
Pro.4or  i.  Kol.inson,  163,  193,  306,  380. 
Prole  V.  ScMidv,  S'.i.  342. 
PriK)f  I',  llimi.,  If.ii,  190,  344. 
Prosser  v.  Rice,  235,  313. 
Proiidfoot  V  .Monleliur.',  120. 
Pryor  r.  Pryor,  27". 
PurIi,  Ji'r,  lV,(). 
Pulslbnl  V.  Kiehards,  t.-j.  (■:<,  »',9,  73,  94, 

;;:i3.  339,  34o.  :if.i,  39o. 

Pulvertoft  V.  Pidv.-rtolt,  227.  230,  235. 
Purcell  V.  K.llv,  31-2. 

—      r.  M.ietinniava,  171,  297.  306,  344. 
Piinlie  «•.  Mill.lt,  191. 
l'iir>t'  »•.  Snaplin,  4  19. 
Pusey  I',  bcsbouveric,  95,  298,  398,  401. 

QiEEX  r.  Saddler's  Co.  93,  329. 

R.M>fUKKr.  I'.  Warrington,  357. 
Kallles  I'.  Wiiklchaus.  435. 
Uailton  V.  Matthews,  9ii. 
Uainsbottoni  v.  (Josden,  418. 

—  V.  Parker,  165,  184,  191. 

Unmsdcn  v.  Dvson,  117.  129,  131,  136. 

—  V.  Hviton.  203,  -ml. 
Raii.lifTo  V.  Parkins,  'i.M,  3o4. 
Uaiidall  V.  Krrin-toii,  i:.7.  158,300,849. 

—  1'.  .Morixan,  202.  203. 

—  »-.  Willis.  217. 

i!ani,'er  v  Great  Western  Hallway  Co., 

11.5. 
Rankinfif  v.  Tjjirncs.  270,  271,  272. 
Ifapti  f.  Latham,  114.  115. 
Kasl'idall  1'.  I'ord.  90. 
Raw  I'.  Pole,  130. 
Rawlins  t'.  Wiekhnm.4S,  54,  69,  75,  78, 

SO,  81,  258,  334,  357,  359,  379,  393. 
Raworth  v.  Marriott,  171. 
Rawstone  v.  Parr,  426,  427. 
Rayner.  I'.aker,  141,  318, 
Read  V.  Prcst,  381. 
Reade  »-.  Armslrotii:,  41'.». 

—  i:  l.ivini^sloiie,  2n,-).  206. 
Rcilmnn  i-.  Redman.  2  Mi. 
Reech  V.  Kenni^ate.  275. 
Reeil  I".  Norris.  175,  1S2. 

Reese  River  Silver  Mining  Co.  lie  Sinith'a 

Case.  74,  79. 
Reid  f.  Reid,  2<-,s.  269. 

_    V.  Sher-old,  442. 
Reis  I'.  Kipiit^dde  .\-siiranco  Co.,  121. 
Kenifrey  r.  Ihitler,  Ion. 
RennieV.  Yonn^;,  133. 
Ucvetl  V.  llnrvt'V.  178,  179. 
Rex  r.  Rurdett,  3S5. 

V.  1)11  lies 4  of  Kiii;ptton,  294. 


TAIJLE   OF    i:N(iLISII    CASIIS   (  ITi;!). 


17 


Ilejnnrd  v.  Spcnce,  -IMi. 
Ucyncll  V.  Sj.rvo,  41.  M.  07.  7H.  7U.  81. 
Ill,  :i7v,  :>H2,  :ts«,  u'.tH,  •mi. 

l{p3'nol(ls,  t.r-]i<nte,  101,  .'!1'.». 
Uliocies  »'.  IJiilc,  Vi:\,  ir)2.  1.13,  k;.',  175. 
17H,  18'.>.  1K:!.  ISl.  190. 

—  V.  iJi-nitvdir.  If.:!,  K'.fi,  17<>. 

—  )'.  Cooke,  iHii,  IHL',  '2.')4. 
Rice  V.  Gordon,  1S7. 

—  V.  Uicc,  in,  M'.»,  234,  321,  322. 
Uiciinrds  v.  Curlcwis,  1K5,  101. 
Uiciiaril.soii  V.  (ioss.  331 

—  f.  Iloiton,  214. 

—  V.  Sm!dl\v(»od,  203. 
Ilichc's  »'.  I'.viiiis.  2 1"!. 
lliclirnoiMi  r.  'riiyli'iir,  44. 
Kidcr  V.  Kidder,' 2n'.t. 
Uidgway  v.  CJrny,  tl.^J. 

—  V.  Nfwstcad,  30(5. 

—  V.  Siu'vd,  432,  453. 
Ridley  V.  Uidliy,  158. 
Ritifio  V.  liiiiiis,  175. 
Risliton  V.  Cobl),  450. 
llitchie  II.  Coiiper,  172. 
River's  Case,  4  59. 
Roberts  V.  Croft,  250. 

—  V.  Roberts,  370. 

—  t'.  Tuiistall,  2y7,  301,  305,  300, 

307,  311. 

—  V.  Williams,  229,  377. 
Robertson  v.  Norris,  lf.2. 
Robinsou  v.  Bri^rgs.  2H»,  200,  317. 

—  V.  Dickenson,  430. 

—  V.  Musgrove,  03. 

—  V.  I'ett.  l.'iO,  151,  150. 

—  V.  Lor<l  Vernon,  44,  380. 

—  1'.  AVall,  220. 

Robson  V.  Karl  of  Devon,  40,  73,  74,  81, 
3()0.  :.32. 

—  V.  Yh\x.\\t,  317. 
Rochard  v.  Fulton,  200. 

Rociie  V.   O'Brien,   221,   297,    301,  311, 

434. 
Roddy  V.  Williams,  O.".,  241,  258,  200, 

201,  394,  395. 
Rodgers  v.  JIarsliall,  443,  445,  440. 
Roc  V.  CJalliers,  280. 
Rogers  V.  Bruce,  182. 

—  V.  lladley,  44,  389. 

Rolfe  V.  Gregory,  52,  152,  307,  309,  352. 

Rolleston  v.  Morton,  317. 

Ronnyne's  Estate,  Ee,  102. 

Rooke  V.  Lord  Kensington,  421,  422. 

Roopcr  1'.  Harrison,  130,  142,  320,  321, 

324. 
Rorke's  Estate.  Re,  260,  201,  262,  266. 
Ross  V.  Estates  Investment  Co.,  68,  83, 

88,  92,  94,351. 
—    I'.  Steele,  178. 

Rothschild  v.  Brockman,  172,  174,  349. 
Routledge  t-.  Dorrill,  270. 


llowlcv  '■.  Uowlcv,  20K,  27.".. 
l:r)y  »'."  Dukeof  iJeaiifort.  iKt,  185. 
Ihi'sJK.iit  I'.  Turner.  i:;8.  139. 
RiiH.sell  )'.  Iluininond.  199.  2<)7. 

—  I'.  JackHou,  61,  275,  279,  38C. 

Saui.kh  v.  .lackflon,  215. 

—  V.  Lee.  381. 
Snlkeld  v.  Vernon,  298,  310. 
Salmon  v.  Cults,  •_".i7,  301,  391. 
Sake  V.  FioM,  :;:;:. 

Saltern  v.  Mellllli^ll,  27.'.. 
Saltmarshe  i-.  liarrett,  402. 
Sanderson  v,  Wiii'^er,  158,  159. 
Sandford  v.  Handy,  SK,  258. 
Sandforil  v.  Raikes,  452. 
Saunders  v.  Dehew,  234,  313. 
Saunderson  v.  Slarr,  148. 
Savage  v.  Carroll,  130. 

—  V.  Foster,  13(t.  148. 

—  V.  Mur])]iy,  2n,s. 

—  V.  Taylor,  31."). 

Saverv  v.  King,  105,  180,   182,  297,  300, 

3"l0,  335. 
Sawyer  v.  (Joodwin,  379. 

—  V.  Vernon,  42. 

Saxon  L  I'o  Assurance  Co.,  lie,  400,  430. 

Say  )'.  iJarwick,  147,  297. 

Sayer  v.  Sayer,  438,  441,  440. 

Schloss  >>.  Stiebel,  45n. 

Schneider  v.  Ileatli,  lo2. 

Scholerteld  t'.  Templar,  4S,  51,  04,  336, 

400,  430. 
Scholtield  )'.  Lockwood,  419. 
Scott  ;'.  Dixon,  374. 

—  V.  liuidjar,  175. 

—  V.  Hanson,  83,  84,  86,  361. 

—  V.  Scott,  12.5,  184,  185,  216,  434. 
Scroggs  V.  Scroggs,  277. 

Sfaman  v.  Vawdrey,  103. 

Seddon  v.  Connell,  340,  380,  381. 

Segravc  v.  Kirwan,  171,  274,  334 

Selliy  V.  Jackson,  145. 

."^eliack  V.  Harris,  275. 

Sells  I'.  Sells,  421,  422. 

Selsej-,  Lord,  v.  Klio.ides,  173,  302. 

Sclwav  V.  Fo^g,  328. 

Sehvnod  V.  Jlildmay,  450,452. 

Sepalino  f.  T\viUy,'270. 

Sercombe  i'.  Saunders,  193,  254. 

Serle,  tx-jmrte,  101. 

Seward  v.  Jackson,  204,  200. 

Seymour  v.  Lucas,  280. 

SJmckleton  v.  Sutclifle,  03,  79,  9.'.,  33tf, 

303,  393. 
Shand  v.  Grant,  414. 
Shannon  v.  Bradstreet,    303,   438,  441, 

443. 
Sharp  V.  Arbutlm.t.  248. 

—  V.  CossiT.itl,  2s7. 

—  V.  Leach,  193,  oOl,  350,  387 


IS 


TAiiu:  ov  r.Nci.isii  casus  ciir.n. 


Slmrp  r.  Tnyl'T,  '.M9. 
SImrplf!'!*  r.  Ailnniii.  :tl3,  315. 
>liM\v  ••.  liiiiiny,  Ii^'i. 

—  r.  .lotlory,  M.  '.'<><». 

—  r.  Noali-',  1<  t>,  '.Mm. 

—  r.  Thnokfrny,  147. 
Shcnril  r   Viiiablr!*,  M,  oM. 
Slu-nrman  v.  Miic;;rr;^>r, -IIH. 
SluHldcn  r.  rtttriik.  li'.KJ.  •i'.'l. 
SlieUl.in  r.  Cox.  'j:i.'>.  'ill,  U.'.O. 
Slu'plicixl  I'.  I'ylius,  lo7. 

—  v.  S\.nr\<i',  hiO. 
Sherwin  r.  Sli!ikc>|iiarf.  318, 
SldTWiuxl  V.  Knldiiiis.  r.l. 
Siiilljhoor  r.  Jarvis,  130. 
Slu|>'s  Case.  iVI. 
Sliirloy  r.  Davis,  401 

—  •'.  Slrattoii.  lit'j.l. 
Slin"wsl>ury    <k     l]irmiiii;liaiii    Hnil 

Co.     v.    liortli    Wcalcrn      Kail 

Co.,  4 11. 
S]irtil>S()lo  r.  SuR.«nms,  '2S1,  '2S4. 
Sil.i.al.l  r.  Mill,  \K\. 
JjiMn  ring  v.  Karl  of  Balcarres,  304, 
Sibson  r.  Kilgewortii,  3iJG. 
Sidny  »•.  Unn-jer.  ICrt.  349. 
Siebert  r.  Spuoiu-r,  '2S1. 
Sillcni  V.  TliiinitDii,  7-,  121. 
Sinilisuii  r.  Lunl  Ilowilen,  296. 

—  p.  Vaiii;liaii,  -lUTt. 
>ims  t'.  Marryult,  loo. 
.'^isiiK-v  »'.  KU'y,  378. 
Skarff  r.  Soulliv,  204. 
Skillbuck  V.  Hilton,  298, 
SkiiiiuT,  cx-parte,  103. 

Skoltc.we  V.  Williams,  299,  304,  312 

Slater's  Case,  27S. 

Slccch's  <'as»',  425. 

Slim  V.  Croucher,  40,  47,  54,   09, 

342,  34.'.,  351 1,  390. 
Slu\>ki-n  V.  Hunter,  270. 
Small  V.  Attwood,  73,  74,  302,  351, 
373. 

—  f.  Currio,  122. 
Smallman'.-*  K-Uite,  AV.  200. 
Siiifdicy  »•.  Varlcy,  101. 
S.iiilti   V.  Ablilori,  443. 

—  r.  IJak.-s,  307. 

r.  liaiik   of    Scotland,    100, 

123. 

—  V.  IJromli-y.  377. 

—  V.  lirunin;;,  221. 

—  ».  Cannan,  212,  281.  283. 

—  V.  Capron,  212. 

—  r.  Ch.  rrill.  2t>4.  205.  232 
_      V.  Clorkf,  22r.. 

_      V.  Clny.  3t»3,  304. 
v.  Count rvtimn,  87. 

—  r.  I 

—  r,  <  ■  '. 

_       V.  11..M.S,..  r.l,  101. 


way 
wav 


305. 


S33. 


3GG, 


12-j 


Sniitli  i<.  lliimt,  213 

—  r.  .Iilhwrt,  43.'i. 

—  r.  Kav,  74,  75,  03,  94,    152.  182, 

ls:i.  190.  1«.»3.  '297,  382. 

—  r.  Mail  land.  419. 

—  V.  .Marrablt ,   lo4. 

—  r.  I'ark.'f.  322. 

—  V.  I'awsiin.  3S4. 

—  V.  rincoinbi',  125. 

—  r.  IJeese  Iliver  .*^ilvcr  M5nin{f  Co., 
47,  »<•»,  H\,  '251.  'J55,  307,  3U9,  37'2. 

—  V.  'riniinit,  2Sl,  'J.s3. 

—  r.  reulcrdonck,  135. 

—  r.  WliitiMiire.  •J.S9.  290,  298. 
Sniitli'.s  Ca-e,  OS,  79,  llo. 
Smillison  v.  I'owell,  05. 

Sniout  I',  llbery,  55. 

Smytii  V.  Uritlin,  377. 

Snell  I'.  Jones,  22.'». 

Snook  V.  Walti,  145. 

.Sii!)er  r.  Kemp,  335. 

Solomon  »•.  llonywooil,  102,  112. 

Somerset-sliiro  Canal    Vo.   v.    llarcourt, 

120,  130. 
South  Sea  Co,  v.  Bumpstoad,  44,  291. 
Spacknian's  Case,  43.  203.  298.300.  801, 

311. 
Spaekman  v.  Tinibrell,  214. 
Spaii;lit  V.   Cownc,    123,  138,  139,  259, 

20O,  '201,  317. 
Sponeer  v.  Topliam,  105. 
Spcttigue  r.  Carpenter,  292. 
Spirett  I'.  Willows,  204,  '207. 
Si)ittal  V.  Smith,  182. 
Sprinp  I'.  IVule,  159. 
Spunner  i'.  Wal.-h,  92,  243,  '244. 
."^purgeon  v.  Collier,  2o2. 
Scjuire  v.  Cami>bell,  418. 

—     V.  Whitton.  123. 
St,  Albyn  r.  llardinjj,  381.  398. 
St.  Aubyn  v.  Smart,  47,  330. 
St.  George  r.  \Vake,  219. 
St.  John  V.  St.  John,  378. 
Stncev  r.  Klph,  102. 
Staekliouse  i'.  Countess  of  Jersey,  142, 

321,  322,  323. 
Stafford  r.  Stafford,  402. 
Stainbank  v.  IVrnley,  47,  340,  309,  381. 
Staines  r.  Morris,  39l. 
Stjunton  I'.  Carron  Co.,  100,  434. 
Stamford,  luirl  of.  ••.  Dawson,  350,  393. 
Standen  «•.  Slanden,  45o. 
Stanert  v.  I'arker,  lt'>l,298. 
Stang.r  r.  Wilkins.  261,  283. 
Stanhope's  Ca»c.  2f»3.  3no,  ;jll. 
Stanilaud  ».  \N'ill..lt,393. 
StHtilry  v.  Bond,  -Wi. 
SUmton  I'.  'l'ulter!.Mll,  02,  03,  92.  392. 
btapilton  t'.  >i*oU.  4o'.».  411.  43o. 

—  I',  ."^laii  lion.  40|. 

Steadiiiau  i:  Toole,  211,  249,  253. 


TAiU.i;    or    r.Nt.Ll;  II    CASI'.S    ClTi;!). 


19 


Stomlmiin  v.  i'alliiiu',  17H,  'i'JB. 
Stcbl-iii;,'  V.  Wiilkcy.  AVJ. 
Stcltliiii.i  »'.  Kdily,  tiT. 
bteiliiiaii  J'.  ('<.llLat.  \M. 

—  V   Hart,  II.-.. 
Steed  i\  (mII.v,  1  Hi. 

—  V.  W  liil'takor, '.ir.Ct. 
Steel  V.  \U\\\U,  U. 

Steeveii.s'  IJKSpital  v.  l)ynH,  135. 
Sti'rt'  I'.  Andrews,  117. 
Stepliena  v.  Medina,  Hil. 

—  f.  Ollive,  207. 

—  r.  Vennl.les,  oil,  III 2. 
Steiihensou  v.  Iloy.se,  2:i'.»,  251. 

—         V.  Wilson,  107. 
Stepney  I'.  lUddulph,  iMtl,  ::17,  "50. 
Stevens  v.  Lyneli,  ;{'.>f.,  402. 

—  V.  I'liied,  107. 

—  V.  Stevens,  111. 

Stewart  V.    AUiston,   02,    81,   3u9,   3G0, 
31".  1,  3G2,  31".:!. 

—  V.  Great  We.stcrn  Railway  Co., 
•1."),  40,  47,  307. 

—  V.  Stewart,  12r>,  404,  434. 
Stewart'3  Case,  04,   255,  250,   202,  203, 

300,  301,  305. 
Stickland  v.  Aldridijc,  275. 
Stikeniau  v.  Dawson,  95,  148,  382,  384, 

3.S5. 
Stilenian  v.  Aslulown,  207,  208. 
Stilhvell  t'.  Wilkins,  187. 
Stocker  v.  Stockcr,  217. 
Stockloy  V.  Stocklev,  434, 
Stokes  I'.  Cox,  72,  121. 
Stokesley     Union,     Guardians     of,     v. 

Strothcr,  123. 
Stokoe  V.  Cowan,  209. 
Stone  V.  Denny,  54. 

—    V.   Godfrey,  302,  398,    399,   408, 
436,  455. 
Story  V.  Lord  \Vindsor,  318,  319. 
Straehan  v.  Barton,  285. 
Straker  v.  Ewing,  390. 
Straniije  v.  Brennan,  104. 
S(ran^:ways  v.  Bishop,  18,  243. 
Stratford  v.  Bosworth,  455. 

—  V.  Twynani,  100. 

Stratford  and   Aloretou  Kailway  Co.  v. 

Stratton,  388. 
Stratlnnore,  Lady,  v.  Bowes,  217,  218. 
Stray  v.  raisscll,"l08. 
Street  v.  Blay,  331,  332. 
Stribbleliill  v.  Brett,  222. 
Strickland  v.  Turner,  4o0,  430. 
Stronsj  V.  Stroncr,  199. 
Strou^'hill  V.  Anstey,  249, 
Stuekley  v.  Bailev,  70. 
Stump  V.  Gaby,  48,  297,  298. 
Sturi:.;    V.   Stilrge,    19ii,    193,   398,   401. 

454. 
Stur-\s  i:  Morse,  809. 


Suiniiiers  I'.  Gridilim.  167.  190. 

Sumner  v,  rowell.  427. 

^urcouibe  f.  rinnit;er,  135, 

Siiriiiaii  c.  Parlow,  211. 

Sur.  lice  r.  I  .'Uhhworlli,  104. 

^utliciland  r.  BriL';,rs,  130. 

Sutt'.n  V.  Tenijde,  lol, 

Swuinc  V.  Great  Norllicrn  Knilwoy  Co., 

134. 
Swaisland  v.  DenrHley,  300,  412,  413. 
Swan  I',  Nortli  Briti;;!!  Australatian  Co,, 

.'.4,  09,  i:iO,  137. 
Sweet  V.  Soullicote,  316. 

Taite's  Case,  807. 
Tall.ot  V.  Staniforth,  187, 
Talleyrand  v.  I5oulan2;er,  184. 
Tanner  r.  Klwortliy,  152,  182. 

—  I',  riiirence,  241. 
Tapp  V.  Lee,  94. 
Tarback  i-.  Marbnry,  207. 
TarletoD  v.  Liddell,  198,  354.  372. 
Tate  V.   William.son,   87,  151,  152,  153, 

171,  182.  190,  193. 

Tatliani  v.  Vernon,  445. 

Tayler  v.  Great   Indian  Peninsular  Rail- 
way Co..  137,138. 

Taylor,  ex-partc,  148. 

—  V.  A.shworlli,  54,  55. 

—  «•.  r.,.ker,  241,  252. 

—  V.  lUillcn,  70,  99. 

—  V.  Cliichcster,   «tc.   Railway  Co., 

290. 

—  V.  Hughes,  278. 

—  V.  Jones,  199. 

—  V.  Martindale,  62,  92, 

—  V.  Obee,  183. 

—  V.  I'ugh,  217,  218,  219. 

—  V.  Richardson,  452. 

—  V.  Salmon,  175,  373. 

—  V.  Sliuni,  277. 

—  V.  Stibbert,  234,  241,  244. 

—  V.  >tile,  227. 
Teasdale  v.  Teasdale,  130,  137. 
Teed  v.  Beere,  309. 

Teede  v.  Johnson,  39G, 

Terry  v.  Wacher,  193. 

ThaJker  v.  I'hinney.  20G. 

Theyer  v.  Tombs,  393. 

Thom  V.  Big'.and,  54,  55,  57,  326. 

Thomas  v.  Frazer,  425. 

—  I'.  Powell,  343,  407. 
Thompson  v.  Barclay,  47,  3G9, 

—  V.  Caitwriglit,  2G1. 

—  V.  llarii-son,  381. 

—  V.  Iktfernan,  193, 

—  V.  Simpson,  130. 

—  V.  Smith.  444. 
_  V.  Tomkins,  142. 

—  V.    AVebster,   199,    205,   206, 
207,  208. 


•J!) 


t.m;i,i:  of  i:N(ii,i>M  casks  <  rn:i). 


i;,..ril..T  r    J-liruni,   1>»-'.  '.'M.  208. 

'rh-Tiuliko  ••  Iluiii.  :;i:!.  :;'j... 
■lliuriutt  t.  lliiiiiis.  'J-.*!. 
'UxTliliill  r.  V.v;  11!..  1S4. 
'Ih.'ri-o  v.  .llu•k^..n.  426. 
Tlivnn  V.  Thvnn.  Ufil. 
Tihl.'.lov  r.  1,.mI-.'.  U3l>.  •J.M.  JUO. 
To»M  ..'\\ils..n,  104. 
Tolt  r.  Stfplicnsdii.  SOS. 
T.  kcr  r.  T..k.  r.  1k;>.  1'i;«,  387.  .".91. 
I    11  t  ,:  T.'ll-t.  Jin.  .|I'J.  li:.. 

r..'i  lUnn  IV  i-.i-h.  rj;!. 

Toniuu'v  I'.  ^VIliu',  "J'.'S. 

Toiiiw>n  r.  Juilfre,  I'J.'i,  17t». 

Toi.lmni   I-.   Kuke  of  I'l.rtluncl,  51.  209. 

272. 
Toulinin  v.  J>tccTe,  20S,  2G0,  202,  ."517, 

o24. 
Timrville  ••.  Nnisli,  r.l9,  370. 
To  wart- r.  Sollers.  143. 
Townc.  cx-portf,  101. 
Townen.l  r.  T.-kcr.  200.  231,  232. 
TownsenJ  v.  t'liainpcmowiie,  390,  391. 

—  t'.  Crowtlv.  414. 

—  r.  Lowfu'l.i.  384. 

—  V.  Wcstacolt,  395. 
Townshcnd,   Lord,    v.    Stangroom,   421, 

428.  429,  450. 
Traill  v.  IJariiiff,  45,  C7,  75,  355,  383. 
Tniuhard  v.  W  anlev,  45.  384. 
Trcvclyan  v.  CliarUr.  173.  174,  340,350. 

—  V.  Uiiile,  340. 

Triggew.   Lavalc-c,    125,  404,  407,   4n8, 

434. 
Trower  v.  Newccmo,  82.  83. 
Tucker  r.  I'iiij.ps,  275. 
Tulk  t'.  Moxh.iy,  235. 
Turner  v.  llarvi-v,  97. 

_      r.  Hill.  3M. 
Turcinaiul  r.  Kni<;lit.  380.  396. 

Turtoll  r.  l{^•Il^ 210,  322. 

Twoiidi-ll  I'.  Tweddill.  IHO. 
TwiidalL-  V.  Tw.cdalc,  20O. 
Twilling  f.  Moricp.  302. 
Twvford  I'.  Wartiii).  07. 
Twvne's  ('a.«f,  19'.t,  200. 
Tvki-  V.  \\\h\\  251. 

Tyrrell  v.    iWmk  of   London,    103,    100, 
172,  174,  175,  340. 

Ldeli.  v.  Atlierton.  97.  Ill,  112. 
Ulrich  r.  Lilelitield,  448,  453. 
Lmlerliill  r.  llorwood.  ls4,  187,425. 
I'nderwood  i'.  Ixrd  Coiirtown,  303. 
UniUd  .SUUh,  liunk  of,  v.  DavieH,  262, 
203. 

—  —  V.  IIouHeiiinn,  200. 

—  V.  I'riee,  420. 
Unity  Hank,  rr/wWr,  14S. 

I  pjiuigton  r.  BuUen,  105,  100,  107,  191, 
19^  371. 


I'jitoii  •'.  Vniincr,  130. 
I  riiiMttin  r.  I'aU;,  407. 


AN  r.  Cori.c.  80.  92.  244.  255. 
nncouver  r.  Hli^H.  39ti,  31tl.  3'.)2. 
i.ndel.\ir  I'   nia-ravf,  137,  138,  139. 
ano  I'.  Cobhold,  '.'5. 
—    V.  Kletciier.  274. 
an  Epjis  r.  liarr":H«n,  8  1,  80.  88, 
—        V.  Van  K|>|i«,  151.  100. 
aii^lian  v.  Vatl(U'r^t<•^;«•ll,  1  19. 
.-iii^liton  I'.  Noble.  151. 
auxlinii    Lridge  Co.   v.   Spencer,   22L 

341. 
"eiieziiela,  Ceiitrnl    Unihvay   Co.   of,  v. 

Ki.-^eh. 
eriiedu  r.  Weber,  70. 
enion  v.  Key.^.  78,  82,  87,  88. 

—      V.  Vernon,  441. 
iekers  v.  Hell,  193. 
igers  I'.  Pike,  70.  79,  302,  867. 
ignolles  V.  IJowen,  t'i3,  255. 
illiers  V.  Villiers,  384. 
ine  r.  .Miteliell,  ln2. 
iver-s  v.  Tuek,  35'.».  ' 
orley  V.  Cooke,  49,  312. 
'j-vyan  f.  Vyvyan,  SOL 


Wade  v.  Paget,  442. 
Wa-.stair  V.  Kead,  309. 
Wake  f.  llarrop.  418,  428. 

—  r.  Wake,  453. 
Wakefield  V.  Gibbon.  200. 
Waldron  v.  Sloper.  138,  141. 
Wabord  V.  Adie,  202.  203,  303,  SCO,  307 
Walker  v.  Arni.strong.  420. 

—  r.  Burrows,  2U8. 

—  t'.  Smith.  170.  171.  380. 

—  V.  SvMK.ii.ls,  91.   124,    125,   180, 

2i"t7.  3(13,  384. 
Wall  i:  Cockerell.  138, 139,  297,  301,  802. 

—  V.  Stubbs.  84,  303. 
Wallaee  r.  Wallace,  182. 
Wallgnive  v.  Tebbs,  279. 
Waliisf.  lliirrison.  113. 

—  V.  Duke  of  Portland,  195. 
Wallwvnn  r.  Lee,  315.  320 
Walmsley  r.  Hootli,  103,  100,  303. 
WaWi  r.  Studdert.  170. 

Wal.-liarn  v.  Sfainton,  47,  51,  172,  809, 

308,  371.  37'.»,  380. 
WalterH  r.  Maunde,  242. 

—      V.  Morgan,    97,    100,    358,    805, 
392. 
Walthara  p.  Brougliton,  43. 
Ward  I-.  Pootli.  274. 

—  V.  Hartpole,   100,    170,    340,    372. 

302. 

—  r.  Lant.  370. 

—  f.  Slinllett.  203. 

—  V.  Tratlien,843. 


t.\i;li;  of  i;n(;i,isii  casks  citi:!). 


21 


Mnr.lc  V.  Dickson,  ISO,  'JdH. 

Wiinlcn  I'.  .I..IICS,  n,  i:Hi,  li()2,  MW. 

AVnriloiir  v.  lU'ri.-.lor(l,  '^75. 

Wiiri-  V.  i:;j;m()iil.  'S.'.H,  231),  240,  280,  254. 

^VnI■in;l  t'.  Wariiif;,  14(1. 

M'niiicr  c.  DiiiiiclH.  7H.  10<>,  408. 

Warrick  i'.  W  nrrick  'JMi,  430. 

Wiirriii  r.  Tlioiiiiis,  li'.KJ. 

W  asoii  r.  Wui'in;x.  -'"'-• 

Waters  r.  Bailey,  l.^•_',  182. 

—  r.  (Iroom,  10(». 

—  V.  Tiiorn,  IGl,  297,  298,  390. 
Watson  V.  Toonc,  101. 

—  V.  Marston.  357,  398.  411,11  'J. 
Watt  r.  (J rove,  104,   173,   191,  Ut2,  344, 

3r.2,  :!so. 
Watt8  I'.  Urooks,  379. 

—  V.  Crt-s.-wcll,  148. 
Wav  V.  Iloarno,  93. 
Webb  V.  lirookes  402. 

—  t'.  liyni;,  452. 

—  I'.  Korke,  42,  194. 
Webster  v.  ("ecil,  412,  4.15. 
Webster's  Case,  250. 

Wcdilerbiirn  v.  Wedderburn,    101,   297, 

298,  31  »8. 
Welcliiiian  v.  Covcntrv  Union  Bank,  240. 
Welles  V.  Midilleton,  170. 
Welleslcy  v.  Lord  Mornin£;ton,  208. 
"Wensley,  cx-purto,  281,  2S3,  285. 
Wuntwortb  v.  Lloyd,  105,  174,  306. 
West  r.  Du  Wczele,  435. 

—  r.  Jones,  54,  137,  138. 

—  v.  Rav,  274. 

—  V.  Reid,    238,  239,  240,  241,  254, 

257. 
Westby  v.  Westby,  434,  454. 
"Western  Bank  of  Scotland  v.  Addtc,  48, 

54,  93,  111,  112,  113,  116,  326,  330, 

335,  330,   337. 
Wethcred  v.  Wetlicred,  222,  224. 
Whalley  c.  Wballev,  52,   189,   192,   193, 

302,  304,  305,  "3 10,  312. 
Wharton  v.  May,  344. 
Wheeler  v.  CarVl,  2o3. 
Wheelton  v.  llardisty,  72,  74,  93,   111, 

110,  121. 
Whclan  V.  Whelan.  194. 
Whiehcotc  v.  Lawrence,   158. 
Whitbread  v.  Jordan,  239,  206. 
SVhitcombc,  7»V,  104. 
White  V.  Bradshaw,  03,  359. 

—  t'.  C'uddon,  83. 

—  V.  I)anion,  357. 

—  V.  Carden,  48,  329. 

—  V.  Hall.  44. 

—  r.  Small,  146. 

—  v.  Waketield.  129,  247. 

—  r.  Wakley,  135. 
Whitchous>'fl  Case,  307. 
Whitlitdd  V.  Taussett,  239. 


,  Whllimirc  V.  (  lurifli^u,  2S;}. 

I  —         V.  .MackcHi.ii,  48.  839,  343. 

I  —         t'.  .Ma«()M,  2h0. 

Whitni-y  '•.  Allaire,  330. 

WhiMin"y:(on  v.  Jentiintjfl.  208. 

Whilworth  ?•.  (lau-aiti,  3lH,  389. 

Whytc-  I'.  Meade,  193. 

Wickcs  /'.  Cooke.  200. 

WicMiani  v.  \\  ickliain,  115. 

Wii;t,'r.  Wit;;;,  "2n. 

Willjnr  V.  lluwe,  22 L 

Wild  V.  llilla.s.  407. 

Wilde  I-.  Gibson.  50,  92,  97,    112.    114, 
259,  200.  357.  3r.O. 

Wilkie  V.  Holmes,  4li:. 

Wilkinson  v.  liraytield,  277. 

—  V.  Fow'ke.x,  335,  3)  t,  :'.:.o,  :;."■), 

371. 

—  V.  J(jU'j;hin.  354. 

—  V.  Nelson.  423,  428. 

—  V.  Stafford.  1»5. 
Wilkinson's  Case,  203. 

AVillan  v.  Willan,  19o,  191,  192, 193,  357, 
4O0. 
'  Willats  V.  Bnsby.  230. 
Williams  v.  Bayley,  143,  183,  184,  194. 

—  V.  Lambe,  320. 

—  V.  Livescy,  240. 

—  V.  IJewellin,  300. 

—  V.  l'i-u;ott,  107. 

—  V.  ^milh.  19o,  298,  307,  372. 

—  V.  Wcntworth,  145. 

—  f.  AVilliam.s,  181,434. 
Williamson  f.  Brown,  230. 

—  V.  Gihon,  221,345. 

—  V.  Henderson,  425. 

—  V.  Seabur,  349. 
Willis  V.  Willis.  90. 

I  Willou<;hby  V.  WilloujThby,  313, 314,  320. 
I  Wills  V.  Sti-adlin^,  130. 
1  Wilson  V.  Puller,  Hi. 

—  V.  Hart,  238,  252,  257. 

—  r.  Piijirott.  441. 

—  V.  Short,  40,  79,  SO,  174,  254.  344. 

—  V.  Sinclair,  403. 

—  V.  West  Harlcpool  Railway  Co., 

135. 

—  V.  Wilson.  417,  418. 
■Wiltshire  v.  Marshall.  147. 

—  J'.  Rabbits,  142. 
Winch  V.  Winchester,  65,  361,  304. 
Windsor,  Dean  and  Chapter  of,  v.  I'en- 

vin,  288. 
Winter  v.  Brc  ckwell,  134. 
Wintour  v.  Clifton.  453. 
Wolfe  V.  Frost,  135. 
Wallaston's  Case,  110. 
Wolverhampton  and  Staffordshire  Bank- 
ing Co.  V.  Marston,  212. 
Wood  V.  Abrey,  186.  187,  190,  194,  392 
I      —     I'.  Barker,  2 1 5. 


TAiti.i:  or  r.Nci.i.-ii  cAsr.s  (iti,i>. 


Wood  r.  I)ixic/_'rj. 

—  r.    l'ci"ins.    I'jri.    \C.ll,    IC>»,    170, 

•Ji»7. 

—  r.  l»\vnrric,  121. 

—  r.  (iiinitli.  117. 

—  r.  Scftrth.  4  1 1.  4 12,  1  in,  iri.'.. 
WoocltmiitH  f.  Anglo-Auiitraiiiiii,  Ac. Co., 

27S,  :{2:{. 
Wootlhousc  r.  MorcdHl).  158,  17:5,  171. 

—  r.  Murrrtv.  2S0,  281. 

—  I.  Sli.-|.li"y.  22H. 
Wocxlw.ird  f.  Millir,  22.'!. 
Woollain  r.  llcnrn. -IIS, 'ir>ti. 
Worcistor  ('urn  ICxcli.inije  Co.,  /\e,  2C2. 
AVdnnnId  r.  MnilliUid.  235,  250,  260. 
Worndl  I-.  .Iiicul),  -12'.'. 

Worsloy  r.  De    Mnttos,    100,   201,   220, 
2SO. 

—  r.  Frank, -101, 4l:t.lU. 

—  V.  Lonl  Si'arli(>riiii';l(,  '_'.')'.•. 
^V(>^tllinI;t«ln  »•.  Morjjnn,  111,  2."il. 
AVorfliV  Cnso.  11 C,  X.i'J,  'MO. 
W.irtl.y  v.  i;irkliead,  324. 
Wrif^lit,  ix-jxtiir,  421. 

—  t».  Crookcs.SSS. 

—  ».  Ooff.  42:!. 

—  t;.  11 1. ward,  n03. 

—  e.  rn.ud,  ir.l,  170,  102. 

—  V.  iSiiowe,  148. 


Wrij;lil  I.  \  nii.l.rplnnk,  179.  3ul,    .'iOj. 

:iof..  ;;ll,  :;iU. 
Wri:;lcv  r.  Swainson,  22ii. 
Wrou^lit  r.  DnvicH,  i:i8. 
Wynll  I'.  Hnrwi'll,  2M\. 
Wyilifrloy  v.  Wythfili-y,  193. 
Wyconilii'    Unilwny   Co.   v.    Uonnin^rtoii 

ll<i-<|>ilnl.  412. 
W\ld,  rjr-fxDtr,  tjy:!. 
WVllie  V.  rolli-n,  250,  2('.l. 
Wyso  V.  Liindn-rt,    152,    171,    17i'«,    IK.'J, 

105. 
Wytlu'S  V.  LnboucluTf,  122,  2C0. 

Yr.oM.VNs  V.  Willinms.  80,  12i'.,  :!n. 
York  and  Nortli  Miillund  Railway  Co.  i'. 

Hudson.  lf>l. 
York    l>uililin;rs  Co.    v.  M'Ki'nzio,  158, 

lOO,  172,  17:?.  174,  175,  :}46,  347. 
Younir  V.  I'l.-fclKT.  212,  281,  283. 

—  '  f.  Crote,  l:;o. 

—  r.  (;uy,  i:5S. 

—  r.  r.'aVli.-v.  170,  27:},  277. 

—  r.  Waller",  447. 

—  V.  \V:iud,  2S0,  2S:J. 

—  V   Wl.ito,  138. 

ZuLUETA  V.  Tyrie,  130. 


TAliLI'   OF  AMERICAN  CASES  CITED. 


Abbpv  f.  Dowcv,  01. 
Abbott  f.  Allen".  KM,  n:?4. 

—      1'.  Goodwin,  'ilU. 
Abel  V.  Cave,  X\-l,  Xi',. 
Abney  v.  Kint;-il:incl,  "211. 
Admiis  V.  SoMJi'.  s:!. 
Atltlii)u,t«)n  r.  I'.tlieritlc^p,  213. 
A'^riciiltural  Hank  r.  iJorsev,  Sl.'l. 
Aiken  r.  Hnu-n,  '228. 
Aills  )'.  Gralinni,  11)2. 
Al(iriil'j:e  v.  Weems,  410. 
Alexander  v.  K'-rr,  i;!4. 

—  V.  Newton,  418. 

—  V.  Pendleton,  .31  ■. 

—  r.  Ultez,  2<.»0. 
Allen  V.  Addiiiu,ton,  ;52tj. 

—  t',  llainniond,  411"). 

—  V.  llopson,  44,  104,  355. 

—  V.  Knnney,  202. 

—  V.  Sanders,  234. 

—  V.  Wanumaker,  325. 

—  V.  \Vin.ston,  131. 
Allison  V.  Mattliieii.  108. 
Alston  V.  Outerbridge,  103. 
Ani03  V.  Blunt,  212, 
Ai.derson  v.  Bennett,  T5,  79. 

—  V.  Bradford,  198. 

—  V.  Green,  227,  228,  220. 

—  r.  Hall,  84. 

—  V.  Hill,  320. 

—  V.  Johnson,  328. 
Andrews  v.  Brooks,  211. 
Ai>pleton  V.  Ilorton,  339. 
Armstrong  v.  Campbell,  157. 

—  II.  CushiniT,  328. 

—  V.  Tufts,  328. 

—  V.  Tuttle,  213. 
Armnn  r.  Stout,  144. 
Arnett  v.  Wanett,  206. 
Arthur  v.  Arthur.  397. 
Ash  I'.  Savaije,  210. 
Ashbrook  v.  Watkins,  415. 
Ashniead  v.  Hean,  199. 

.\ shunt  V.  Martin,  212. 
Ask  t:  Putnam,  108. 


Astor  V.  ■\Vell.'5,  202. 
Atkinson  v.  .lordnn,  212. 
Atwood  V.  Wriijjht,  325. 
Austin  i:  Clark,  212. 
Austin  i\  Winston,  377. 
Averill  v.  Guthrie,  323. 
Aylelt  V.  Kinjj,  SOC. 
Ayres  v.  Mitehell,  299,  334,  384. 

—  V.  Moore,  200. 

Babb  ?'.  CIcmson,  210. 
Babcock  V.  Case,  79,  327. 
Baekentoss  v.  Spoichcr,  110. 
liackhousc  v.  Jetts,  345, 
Bacon  v.  Bronson,  333. 

—  t'.  Johnson,  61,  342. 
Badger  v.  Badijer,  3u3,  309,  867. 
Baham  v.  P>aeli,  225. 

Bailey  v.  Burton,  107. 

—  V.  Jordan,  01. 

—  V.  Snyder,  (15. 

—  V.  Trammel,  149. 
Bain  v.  Wilson,  327. 
Baines  v.  AVilliams,  310. 
Baker  v.  Howell,  187. 

—  V.  Pobbins,  327. 

—  V.  Welch,  206. 
Baldwin  t'.  Alli-son,  155. 

—  r.  Johnson,  245. 

—  V.  Marshall,  265. 

—  ?•.  Uichman,  133. 
Ball  V.  Livelv,  327. 
Ballanco  v.  Underbill,  418. 
Balsdbaugh  i'.  Frascr,  164. 
Baltimore  Mar.   Ins.   Co.   v.  Dalrymplc, 

161. 
Bancroft  v.  Blizz.ard,  202. 
Banker  v.  Mills,  172. 
Bank  of  Alexandria  v.  Atwater,  207. 
_  —  V.  Patton,  206,  22S, 

229. 

—  Georgia    v.    Hiirginbottom,   48. 

210. 

—  Orleans  c.  Torrev.  150. 

—  Pittsburg  V.  Whitehead,  262 


r\r.i  i:  »)i'  ami'-KKan  cAsr.s  ciri:!). 


Itnnk  of  r.  S.  v.  I'r  'Nmi.  •_'":;. 
_       _     r.  Ihiiiirl.  :i'."7,  4(»'2. 

—  —     r.  Dnvis.  'HVi. 
__       _     |..  Lw.  llVt. 

Honk  r.  Goro.  nJK. 
—     r.  WtiUnston,  1*27. 
Ikinks  r.  Jmliili.  171.  «03,  a07. 

—  r.  Mnrtiii,  'J«>2. 
l»iirrlny  v.  l)aviil.s(>n.  I'J'J. 
r.iinilunu  f.  Hraiil.  iMil. 
llarliain  r.  •rulMTVill.-.  118. 
liarru's  r.  Camiirt.  I'J.'). 

—  r.  Cariimck,  M. 

—  r.  McKny.  132. 
Harnett  r.  Kcrpus.  '21H. 

__      r.  Sprutt.  187. 

—  V.  Stanton.  71.  101,  300. 
Harney  r.  Saiuulcr.>»,  l.')l,  l.'i»>. 
liarr  /■.  Hrondwav  Ins.  Co.  417. 

_    V.  llatcli.fi".  til. 
l?nrri:i<-asf>  »•.  MiMnrray,  227. 
Iliirron  r.  AlcxancU-r,  lOl. 
IJarrv  f,  Wliitnoy,  10:{. 
llartio  r.  Natl.  :i71. 
Hartli-nian  r.  Douglass,  215. 
IJartlftt  !•.  Williams.  211. 
llart.m  v.  ^^•^s.  171. 
]?a.«s  .•.  Gillilanil,  419. 
lintos  I'.  Norcro»s,  204. 
iJau'rher  v.  Duplioin,  202. 

—       r.  Merrynian,  194. 
Baxter  v.  Cdstnn,  l.')7. 

—  i;.  Gaines.  21(>. 
Ruvaril  r.  Ilcifrmnn,  2U0. 
liavnanl  v.  Ni.rris,  a70,  419. 
H.-ach  r.  (»llc-ndorf.  215. 
Ikal  V.  Warren,  228. 

lienu  i;.  llirrick,  79,  82,  333. 

—  V.  Smith,  209,  313. 

—  V.  Vail.',  ;ii-.4. 
Heard  c  Camphell,  78. 

—  t>    Huhlile,  421. 
lieardsley  r.  |{<Minett,  104. 

_         r.  Kni-lit,  418,419. 
r.eaiihien  v.  IIi-auMen,  3MX,  307. 
Heauj.land  v.  M«K«en,  129,  133. 
Ueek  i:  Simmons,  34:{.  419. 
li<rkwitli  f.  iiiitler,  144. 
lifdfl  r.  Loomirt.  ]H0. 
Bedford  V.  Crane.  2<i7. 
Heers  V.  Hotlnfonl,  ^M.-}. 

—  r.  l)aw>on,  211. 

—  r.  Willianw.  107. 
lieerflcy  r.  llnmilton.  :i71. 
lleeHOIl  I'.   JJee.Moli,   l.'>8. 
I$ein  r.  lleatli,  149. 
Hehlier  r.  J'.elcher,  42.  147. 
l;4dknni.  r.  Senlev.  01.  0.'..  00. 
H»-ll  r.   i'.laiiey.  227.  22'.'. 

—  r.  Hvernon.  77. 

—  r.  licnder»on,  77,  300. 


liell  r.  .Mr(  anlev.  228. 

—  V.  I'rie.'.  447. 

—  V.  Steel.  :;97. 
Hellamv  v.  Hellamv.  l.'iS. 
Mellows  i:  Steno.  4  Id.  418. 
Hendnrant  v.  <  'rawford,  323. 
lienediet  r.  iMlman.  225. 
Bennett  v.  Fail.  :!"•<•. 

—  V.  .Iiidson.  55.  111.  325. 

—  r.  Inion  Hank.  197. 
Benton  v.  .tones.  2im;. 

—  r.  Stewart.  ".27. 
Benzein  v.  Lenoir,  2:59. 
llrfT  V.  Ka.lcliire,  427. 
Berkcr  r.  Vrooman,  327. 
Herrien  v.  MeLane,  170. 
Bett.s  V.  (Jiinn.  410. 
Beverly  v.  KUis.  2r,|. 

—  V.  Kennolds,  291. 
Bibb  V.  rrallier.  350. 

—  V.  Sniitli,  105. 

Bidaidt  r.  Wales,  108,  109,  110. 
Bis^elow  e.  Barr,  4<tO. 
Bi:r:,'s  »•.  Barr  v.  lo9. 
Bill  V.  Webb,' 1. '.4. 
Bin),'aman  r.  Hyatt,  230. 
Bird  r.  Aitken.*2t>l. 

—  r.  Bmiton.  131. 

—  V.  Bolduc.  2(10. 
Birdsong  v.  liirdsong,  124. 
Birely  v.  Staley,  40. 
BischofT  V.  Lueas,  327. 
Bi-ssel  I'.  ]Ioi)kins,  211. 
Black  t'.  Jones,  217. 

—  1'.  Tli.irnton,  235. 
Blac'lnvood  r.  .lones,  132. 
Hlair  r.  McDonnell,  419. 
Bluisdell  V.  Cowell,  3S3. 

—  V.  SU'Vens.  236 
Blake  v.  Graham.  204. 

—  V.  .lones,  2o7. 

—  f.  Pick.  124. 
Blanchani  v.  Tyler.  318. 
Blankenskip  r.  "Douglass,  248, 
Blen  V.  Bear  Hiver,  etc.,  Co.,  829, 
Blessing  1'.  Bealty,  419. 

Blight  V.  Banks, '318. 
Bliss  r.  Cottle.  328. 
Blodgetl  V.  Uobart,  419. 
Blount  1'.  Kohesiin,   172. 
Blow  V.  .Maynard,  l.')5.  203. 
Blumenthali'.  Brainerd,  259. 
Blydenl.ureh  v.  Welsh.  299. 
Bogard  v.  Gardley.  207. 
BoiTgs  V.  Merced  cl  <il,  132. 
Bohn  I',  lleadley,  233. 
Hoils  r.  Boils,  \W. 
Bi.lt  I'.  Uogers,  374. 
Bond  I'.  Brown.  3(»4. 

—  e.  Clark.  32.V 
Boon  r.  Mill.r,  41.'.. 


TAIJLE   (»!■    AMIIUICAN'    CAHMS   CITKI). 


23 


l?oono  I',  riiilos,  30(1.  308,  3ti2,  ."T' 
Huuth  V,  Itariiii  n,  '2'M. 

—  I',  liiiolli,  :{(■.«. 
liori'iiii^  I'.  Siiii;«rv,  11. 
Korliin.l  r.  Wallv.T,  IVC,  ;!I5. 
Uossnnl  r.  Wliitc,  lit; J. 

UoHloii  Wiitir  I'owcr  (!o,  v.  Gniy, 
Host  wick  V.  I>i\vis,  ;!20. 
Hnswcll  V.  liiiclmmiii,  318, 
15.)l.-<|()r,l  ,-.  .MrI,.'iiM,  113. 
13ou(k  V.  WillxT,  IKi. 
Houliii  V.  I'olloik,  117. 
Howcrs  I'.  Joliiison,  112. 
Howiiiun  V.  MiitcH,  97. 

—  V.  Hi'rriiifij,  'ill. 

—  V.  W  atlR'H,  301. 

Boyco  V.  (Jnmdy,  Id,  7l»,  331,  313 

—  V.  Waller,  313. 

—  V.  AVntson,  71. 
Boyd  V.  Bnrcliiy.  374. 

—  V.  Bopst.'io;-.. 

—  V.  Brown,  325. 

—  V.  Duiilai),  210. 

—  V.  Hawkins,  154,  297. 

—  V.  Yaiitlorkcnip,  25P. 
Boyer  v.  Wilson,  437. 
Boznian  v.  ])r.Hi;;!;lian,  200. 
Bracken  v.  :Millcf.  2r>;),  3ir>. 
Brnckeniidi^o  v.  Holland.  3St). 
Bradbur}-  r.  Keas,  331,  333. 

—  V.  White,  417. 
Bradle}'  v.  l?osiev,  73. 

—  V.  Chaso",  2!t8.  391. 
Brady  v.  Briscoe,  2ni». 
Brainerd  v.  Jh-airierd,  388. 
Brantley  ''.  Key,  154. 

—  '   V.  West,  421. 
Bra.shear  i'.  West,  212. 
Brcck  V.  Cole,  215. 
Breed  ('.  Conlcy,  204. 
Breininel  v.  Stockton,  211. 
Brenlon  v,  Davis,  1()7. 
Brewer  v.  Lyncli,  173. 

—  V.  Vanarsdale,  178. 
Brice  v.  Bricc,  144. 
Bridgcn  v.  Atkins,  174. 
Briggs  V.  Parknian,  210. 

—  V,  Taylor,  239. 
Bright  V.  Boyd.  444. 
Brinkeriiof  t'.  Brown,  45,  154. 

—  f.  Lansing.  370. 
Broad  well  v.  Broad  well.  91,  397. 
Brock  V.  Barnes.  103,  170. 

—  V.  McKautrhtrey,  383. 
Brodduc  !'.  (all,  297. " 
Broddus  v.  McC'all,  84. 
Brogden  v.  Walker.  144,  383. 
Brooke  v.  iVrry,  173,  345. 
Brooks  V.  llaiuilton,  61. 

—  V.  Powers,  211. 

—  V.  Winier,  213. 


447. 


388. 


Brothers  v.  Porter,  l.'il. 
Browcr  t'.  Peaiiody,  31.'i. 
Bnjwn  V.  Ander.Mon,  24 .'i. 

—  V.  Arnii'-fead,  397. 

—  V.  iiuck.H,  'S2H. 

—  f.  I)onald.  I9i'>. 

—  r.  Lanipli.ar.  410. 

—  7'.  Lynch.  225. 

—  V.  Met 'line,  148. 

—  V.  McDonald.  199,  208. 

—  r'.  .Murphce  107. 

—  V.  Uilev,  211. 

—  r.  .Siniili,  201. 

—  V.  Wel)i),  2(12. 

Bruce  V.  Davenjiort,  172,  299. 
Bueldcr  v.  Cloninger,  375. 
Brncn  v.  Ilone,  3:;5. 
Bryan  v.  Duncan,  l.'>7. 
Bryant  »-.  Kclton,  lil  1. 

—  V.  Man.sfield,  375,  397. 
Buelianan  r.  Horney.  329. 
Budincr  >:  Forker,  353. 

Buck  I'.  McCaugiitry,  101,  335,  344. 

—  V.  Sliertnan,  384. 
Buckcr  V.  Lightner,  310. 
Buckingham  I'.  Smith,  132,  133,  244. 
Buckley  »'.  Artchcr,  109. 
Buckner  v.  Calcote,  311. 
Bullalow  V.  Buffalow,  140,  164. 
Bul'ord  )'.  J5rown,  30i>. 

—  V.  Caldwell,  55. 
Bulkley  v.  Starr,  292. 
Bullish.  Borden,  211. 
Bullock  /•.  Beemis,  345. 

—  V.  Irving,  201. 
Bum  V.  Ahl,  200. 
Bumpass  v.  Dotson,  201. 

—  ('.  Phitncr.  310. 

—  V.  \Vebl>,  291,  447. 
Bunch  )•.  Ilur.st,  144. 
Bunting  v.  Kicks,  239. 
Burhank  ;•.  Hammond,  196. 
Burchill  ,:  Marsh,  447. 
Burley  v.  Uussell,  148. 
Burnham  v.  Chandlcy,  204. 
Burrill  )'.  Bull.  172.  ' 
Burrows  v.  Alter,  328. 
Burtch  )'.  Hogge,  364. 
Burt  i:  Wilson,  400. 
Burton  ?■.  Willcrs,  77. 
Butler  ('.  Durham,  420. 

—  f.  Haskell,    144,    173,    184,    18n, 

187,  189,  297. 

—  V.  Stoddard,  201. 
Butler's  Ajipeal,  97. 

Byers  v.  Surget,  169,  187.  188,  295v. 

Cady  V.  Owens,  127. 
Cain  1'.  Guthrie,  299. 
—    r.  Jones,  229. 
Caldwell  V.  Barilc'.t,  313. 


L'4 


T.Vr.l.K    OV    AMTIiHAN    CASES  CIIED. 


(.'alilwi'll  V   y  Mhnvill,  ;>.>'>. 

—  r.  ('iirrin^ton,  2o1. 

—  f.  (JillH.  uiy. 

—  r.  Tftu'in>rt.  157. 
_       f.  W  liitf.  345. 

—  f.  WilliaiiiH.  128. 
Cnllon  r.  Tlii>inj>M»n,  'Jll. 
Callis  f.  Ili.l.uit.  ir.-J. 

—     r.  Wii.l.ly,  :U0. 
('nnur<M»  «•.  iniiuron.  '-2<\ 
Ciimp  f.  I'imiji.  "'•',  >»1,  83. 
Ciui>i>Ih'1I  f.  i  iirUT,  3".i9. 

—  r.  Johnson,  157. 

—  r.  Sloiiii,  203. 

—  V.  Viiiinir,  310. 

—  r.  V,i(<tern.  AiS. 

—  r.  Wliittiuirlmm.  103.   133. 
rninplin  v.  Kurt  on,  314. 
Canal  Co.  v.  (ionlon,  M. 
Cannon  «■.  Jenkins,  UU. 
Cnpehart  v.  Moon,  40". 
Carlicrry  r.  'raiinehill,  358,  411. 
Cnni  V.  "Wnlliicc.  44(i. 
Cardwi'il  V.  MiClfllnnd,  101. 
Carlisle  r.  Uiih.  198,  2o7. 
Curr  V.  liol).  311. 

—  V.  Ciilia-han,  103,  124,  319,  41fi. 

—  r.  Hill.  2U0. 

—  r.  AVallate,  129,  131. 
Carroll  r.  I'ottcr,  49. 

—  r.  Ivic.',  299,  306,  315. 

—  V.  Sl.ickls,  2ir>. 
Carpenter*'.  Hart,  293. 

f.    K>ir,  20)). 

—  V.  Stillwell,  128, 
Cnrson  v.  Bailie,  100. 
Curler  p.  Caitkberry,  231. 

—  V.  Ca.Mleliury,  227. 

—  f.  Chaiiipioii,  204. 
Cnser.  Carroll,  109. 

—  t>.  (Jarisli,  215. 

—  V.  Hall.  inr,. 

—  V.  Jcnnin}jj«,  315, 

—  V.  riitlp-,  207. 
Casoy  V.  AiUn.  54,  70,  384. 

—  V.  Caaev,  173. 

Catlicarl   v.    Uobinson,   227,   304,  413. 

417. 
Catlin  V.  C.rote,  131. 
(Veil  V.  Spvir-er.  lol.327. 
Cc-ntru'.  IJank  i-.  Copelaml,  184. 

Ina.  Co.  V.  rroU'Ction  Ins.  Co., 

170. 

f  l.f.tr-e  r.  Fori.  lOS.  109. 

(  li.iliiti  r.  Kiinlmll.  22S. 

I  liuinlierlain  i-.  rill^lairy,  190. 

r.  '1  lioiiiimnn,  419. 

(1 1  .  .-1  .-.ju'  i..  .Mar.-ii.  410. 

(  lie  r.  TenipU',  45,  4i'>. 

,  .  White,  ;!2S. 

Ui»nij;liii  V.  Lay  tin,  241,  399. 


rhanilUr  v.  \ViL"„'in~.  105. 
Chnpin  v.  ^en^e.   197. 
_       V.  Weed.  i:)4, 
Clinimnn  ••.  Ciinpinan,  358. 
(  harl.H  r.  Duhose,  1^7. 
riiarltun  v.  I.iay.  190. 
Clienery  v   ralimr,  21 1. 
(  lurry  i'.  New>oni.29".  * 

Clwslerman  v.  (uinlner,  104,  382. 
lliew  V.  Cnloiit.  211. 

—  r.  Calvert,  134,  241. 
niiekerini:  r.  Ilateli.  201. 
Chilli  I'.  Brener.  l.'>7. 
Ciiil>Mian  r.  Hrii^s^-'.  00. 
Chisholin  V.  (Ja.U.len.  93. 
Chohan  v.  Jonc-*,  201. 
Chophnril  I',  liayj.r.i,  213. 
Chotiteau  V.  Siiernian,  202. 
Christian  v.  Scott,  329. 
Christinas  r.  Mitohell,  241. 

_         »•.  Spink,  384. 
Chnmar  r.  W0...I,  21«». 
Church  r.  StcrliiiiT.  172. 
Citv  Coiuicil  r.  Viv^o,  200,  316. 
Clahauirh  »-.  Byerly,  128. 
Clapp  V.  Leatlierb'-e,  231. 

—  r.  TirrcU,  227.  230. 
Clapton  V.  Co/art,  79,  32.5. 
Clark  f.  Bairii,  1">4. 

—  V.  Clark.  1 10, 

_    t'.  Donirlas.  190,  197,  293. 

—  V.  Ihiteher.  4i'-.'. 

—  V.  Kveriiart,  71. 

—  V.  Freneli,  2t'7. 

—  V.  Man.  Ins.  Co.  119. 

—  V.  rarlri<l'.;e,  3(".S. 

—  !•    Van  KicUKlvke,  390. 

_    ,•.  White.  94,  90.  21:.,  325,  384. 
Clarkson  r.  Miteheli,  .■>2. 
Clunter  v.  Burgees.  227. 
Clay  V.  Dcnni."*,  368. 

—  V.  Turner.  330. 
Clay  horn  v.  Hill,  210. 
Clayton  v.  Hrown.  228. 

'        _      f..  Burn.y,  4nO. 
Cleary  v.  (our,  44s. 
Cieavclanil  r.  Dixon,  447. 

t'.  Ko^^ert",  0<«. 

Cleavinjr'T  v.  llciuiur,  103,  109, 
Clem  r.New.  <k  Dan.  U.  U.  Co.  90. 
Clemens  v.  Davis.  2'il. 
Clement  v.  Moore,  199. 

r.  Smith,  3tK>. 

Clements  v.  Loj;-infl.  127. 

_        V.  Uei.l.  358. 
dilherall  v.  (.>Kilvie,  357. 
I  Coburn  t-.  I'lekerin;;,  211. 
Cochran  r.  Cummini;«,  93. 
Cocke  V.  HariUn.  335, 

...  Me(;ini.i-«.  310. 

Cocks  V.  Iz;inl.  173.  224. 


TAlJI.i:    OI'    A.MDKICAN    CASIIS    CITKl). 


-.) 


roildin^jton  v.  I?ny,  :U'.>. 

—  V.  (uiildard,  112. 

Cofffo  V.  \(«ws(iiii,  7:1.  ;i;i.'>. 

Coftini;  r.  Tavlnr,  ln'.t. 

CofTicill  V.  Half.  A-  N.  llav.  U.  U.  Co.  313 

('o:;liill  r.  15()riii;r,  ;i2.S. 

('olclii'slcr  I'.  Culver,  420. 

('"Icock  )'.  Ui'(>(l,  1(1.'). 

CdIo  v.  MrCJlalliry,  :!10. 

Colt'iimii  1'.  Hank  nf  Ifnniburi;,  '111. 

—  r.  HarkU'w,  'JfS 

—  V.  Cwliv,  I'.t?,  313. 

—  v.  Lvnc,  :W3, 
CoIps  ».  Brown,  -111. 
Collier  v.  Lanii-r,  I  in. 

—  V.  'riioin|i.'<oii,  209. 
Collins  V.  Dcnnison,  fid,  a'jri. 

—  V.  McElrov,  213. 

—  V.  My.T.s,  211. 

—  V.  Smith,   101. 
Colquitt  V.  Thomas,  239. 
Colter  V.  Jloriraii,  'Jl. 
Coltrnius  »•.  (  au>.ey,  375, 
Combs  V.  Cooper,  l:;3. 
Conniionweallh  r.  Ilodes,  204. 
Comstock  »•.  Ames,  2'.l8,  371. 

—  t'.  Comstock,  1 74. 

—  ?■.  Knyford,  211. 
Conant  r.  Jackson,  14  J,  385. 
Concord  IJaidc  c.Greiji,',  1 1 1,U2, 327, 32j). 
Coiikcj-  V.  IJond,  171. 

Coukling  I'.  Carson,  212. 
—        )'  Sliell>y,  213. 
Connersville  v.  Wiidleiijh,  79. 
Connor  v.  Henderson,  410. 
Conrad  v.  Atlantic  Tiro  In.s.  Co.  211. 
Conroe  v.  Birdsail,  14;'. 
Conway  v.  Alexander,  194. 

—  V.  Ellison,  3t)0. 
Conycrs  t*.  Knnis,  lu'.i. 

—  V.  Kcenans,  310. 

—  V.  11'in.x,  150. 
Cook  V.  Cole,  144. 

—  V.  Collyer,  377. 

—  I'.  Oilman,  327. 

—  V.  Travis,  240. 

—  V.  ^Villianls,  3n8. 
Cooke  V.  Kelt,  228,  229. 

—    V.  Nathan,  399. 
Coolidge  V.  Brigham,  105. 
Coon  V.  Atwell,  329. 
Cooper  V.  Crosby,  397. 
Copeland  v.  Copdand,  128. 
Coppaijc  V.  ISarnctt,  228. 
Corbett  v.  Norcross,  129. 
Cork-bill  V.  Landers,  129,  138. 
Corprew  v.  Arthur,  228. 
Cosby  V.  Ros-s,  207. 
Cotton  V.  Hart,  237. 
Coiicli  V.  Sutton,  149. 
Coulson  1).  Wulton,  306. 


ConltH  fi.  Crccnhorn,  203. 
Cowan  f.  ]{arr<tt,   109. 
CowlcH  t'.  Haco,  127. 
Cox  V.  Buck,  131. 

—  f.  Sullivan,  103,  104. 
Cralifrce  v.  (in-cn,  448. 
Craddock  v.  Cnbincss,  144. 
Cra;;<;  v.  Martin,  200. 
(  rai;;  ('.  l.cipcr,  322. 

—  »'.  Waril,  32'>. 
Cram  v.  .Mitchell,  174. 
Cran(!  v.  Conklin,  44,  147. 

—  V.  Prather,  405. 
Cravens  v.  Booth,  149. 

—  ?'.  Grant,  32''>. 
Crawford  v.  lieetholf.  90,  321. 
Crawley  v.  Tiiiiberlakc,  299,368. 
Creath  v.  Sims,  374. 

Cres.sy  v.  Philips,  312. 
Cre.st  t'.  Jaek,  128,  134. 
Cries  v.  ^Vitllers,  417. 
Croat  i:  De  Wolf,  127. 
Crocker  «'.  Lewis,  112. 
Crockett  r.  Lashbrock,  127. 

—  V.  M.ii,niire,  204. 
Crofts  V.  Arthur,  197,  202,  310. 
Cromwell  v.  Owinijs,  447. 

—  »'.  A\  inchester,  420. 
Cross  V.  Peters,  I08. 
Crowder  v.  Lnnjjdon,  409. 
Crozier  i'.  Acer,  299. 
Cruise  v.  Chri.-topber,  147. 
Crump  )•.  l)udley,  219. 

—  V.  U.  S.  Mining  Co.,  114,  116. 
Crutchfield  v.  Ilaynes,  154. 
Cubbins  i:  Markwood,  186. 

Cullaiii  )'.  Branch  Bank,  329. 

Culver  V.  Avery,  329. 

Cumberland  Coal  Co.  v.  Sherman,  155, 

ir.,S,  101,  174,  297,  298,  399. 
Cuniminf:js  v.  McCullough,  313,  346. 
Cunningham  v,  Fithian,  335. 

—  V.  Freeborn,  389. 

—  f.  Hull,  107. 

—  V.  Shields,  874. 

—  V.  Smith,  73. 
Curd  V.  Dodd,  149. 
Currens  v.  Hart,  240. 
Curric  v.  Cowles,  344. 

—  1'.  Steele,  124. 
Curtis  V.  Hitchcock,  318. 
Cushing  V.  Wyman,  327. 

Custer  V.  Titusville  Water  «t  Gas  Co.  116. 

—  Tompkins  Co.  Bank,  202. 

Dacey  v.  Daniel,  200. 
Dalton  I'.  Rust,  00. 
Hantortb  t<.  Adams,  132. 
—        V.  Wood,  210. 
Daniel  v.  .Mitchell,  73,  98,  407,  416. 
Danlev  i'.  Rector,  131. 


•jr. 


TAHLi:   OF    AMKKUAN    CASKS   CITKI). 


Parwin  r.  llntnlloy,  -'i7. 
Daushty  r.  Snv«Kt'.  'Jl.*!. 
l»ovitl(«on  r.  (irtor.  421. 

—       V.  Moss.  ni.  it.'i,  103,  3:u. 
n.nvU  r.  ISnvlfV.  4<'-. 

—  V.  Hiiilcr.  I'liU.  UIM,  237. 

—  r.  IkiMlniul,  r.34. 

—  r.  Cnlvirt,  ISS. 
_    r.  llaiuly.  1 '-'•.». 

—  r.  JniiH-s.  'J'.''.'. 

—  r.  M.NuUv.  140. 

—  r.  M.-ikir",  8tl. 

—  r.  Morsrnn.  184. 

—  r.  I'nviu',  -Oft. 
_    »•.  MiVlis.  4-Jl. 

—  f.  TlmiDiis.  r27. 

—  V.  Tm-n<r,  'J  11 
Onvoo  r.  rnniiins.  l'>^,  'CI. 
Day  r.  Sclt-y,  14'".. 
DeiuliTuk  r."\Valkins,  187. 
Dean  r.  Ma.«<m.  In:.. 
Doarmaii  r.  Diarnmn.  2O0.  220. 
Do  Aniiand  v.  IMiillips.  2'.»'.>. 

l>o  Cater  r.  Ltroy  tie  Cliamnont,  157. 

I>ecouche  v.  Swi'ticr,  :'.i>S. 

IVop  River  (Jolil  Miniii-j  Co.  v.  Fox,  175. 

lieerbell  v.  VUhvr,  2o:i. 

Delaware  r.  Eii.sii;n,  21:5. 

Delcsdcrnier  v.  !Moary,  198. 

Dcming  v.  Foster.  K't>. 

Deiitou  f.  M'Keiizie,  173,  o8"J,  '^^H. 

Dertloy  v.  Murpliy,  377. 

I)e  llose  V.  Fay,  li'>3. 

Dc^ell  >:  Ca-sey,  41V. 

Dcvereux  v.  lJiir;,'\vyn,  128. 

Dcviiiney  v.  Norris,  IC'J. 

Dewev  r.  Field,  131. 

Dc  Witt  I'.  .Moullon,  204. 

Doy  V.  Duiiliain,  2ti(>. 

Dick  V.  Cowper,  22."i. 

—  V.  GriH.-oni,  1"J'.'.  389. 
Dickens  f.  Jordan.  loO. 
l>iekerM>n  »•.  Tiirnii!;li»-t.  '^^^^ 
l>ickinftoii  c  IJradeii,  200. 

—         V.  Davis.  131. 

_         I'.  (Jieiiiiey.  420. 
Diehl  p.  Vage,  215. 
Dill  f.  Camp.  :5<>"- 

—  V.  Shalian,  '•'''•H. 
Dillard  r.  Dillurd,  2n0. 

Diman  r.  I'rovideiice  IC.  I'.  Co.,  407. 
I>i-bn)\v  V.  JoiHM,  240,  2'J5». 
l»iMiiiikeH  r.  Terry,  141,  183,377. 
Dixlield  r.  Newton,  132.^ 
D'll.son  »'.  Hacey,  173,  174. 
jKKkrav  •••  DfKjkray,  212. 
D<.<ld  .'."M'Craw.  200. 
D'Ml^e  r.  (JriHWold,  40. 
DoiJHon  ••.  Cooke,  228. 
D.K-  r.  Kecd.  200. 
l"'t;t,'«:U».  EnicfHon,  V8 


Dolkray  «'.  Maxon,  ll>7. 
DiinaKNon  v.  M'Koy,  225. 
DonelHon  V.  Ciiinent.-*,  54,  61. 
Donneil  r.  Kinp,  370. 
Dooley  I'.  JenningH,  9fi. 
Doolittle  t'.  Lyman,  231. 
Dorr  V.  yUin»'*W,  32S. 
Dorsey  v.  Dorfey,  158. 

—  V.  tlarkniaii,  105. 

—  r.  Smilli>on,  375. 
Doswell  V.  Iturlianan,  204. 
Doujjlierty  t-.  Doii^^liertv,  299. 

—  f.  .laek,  22S. 

—  t'.  M'Colgan.  194. 
Doni;las  »•.  Diiiilap,  231. 
Dow  r.  Ker,  •Mi7. 
])ownes  V.  KissMin,  197. 
l)owney  r.  (iarrard,  109. 
l)owiiing  !■.  Major,  105. 
Doylo  I'.  Teas.  240. 

Drake  r.  Collins,  397. 

—  r.  (Mover,  149. 

—  V.  I.atliain,  85. 
Drew  r,  Clarke,  91. 
Driver  v.  Fortune,  184. 
Drury  »'.  Cros.s,  202. 
Diuiic'y  V.  Little,  224,  225. 
Diigau  V.  Giltin^s,  390. 

—  V.  Massev,  197. 

—  r.  VattiJr,  313,  318. 
Diinciin  t'.  Jeti-r,  3:;5. 
Duiiliani  V.  Dey,  200. 
Diinioh  V.  Uicliards,  176. 
Dunn  J'.  AniH^s,  147. 

—     V.  Cliaiiil)er.s,  189. 
Dunnoek  v.  Dunnock,  220. 
Dili  hey  r.  Frena<;e.  204,  318. 
Dnpont  f.  AVetherinan,  321. 
Diipre  r.  Tliomi)Son,  40o. 
Duranl  v.  l!ac<.t,  428. 

—  V.  Duraut,  !>'.i7. 
Durell  V.  Haley,  los,  109. 
Duval  r.  Mowry,  328. 
Duvull  r.  SUillord,  310. 

Eajrle  V.  Burns,  130,  131. 
Kastiantl  i:  Yanarsdalc,  357. 
Fa-t  Tennc-i-^ee  U.K.  Co.  w.  tiaminon,  HI 
i:dilins  V.  Wilnon,  231. 
lvii;ini,'ton  r.  Williams,  199. 
Fdfek  V.  Crim,  105. 
JCdmonds  v.  (iooiiwin,  311. 
Kilwards  t'.  Morris,  234. 
_       f.  Uoherts,  299. 
Kdzell  V.  Hart,  213. 
Fge  V.  Koontz,  402. 
K.-lel>erger  v.  Kibler,  208,  809. 
i;iOileiiiaii  V.  Lewi-*,  17:i. 
Fld.r  V.  Fldir.  418. 
Kldred  f.  lla/.Kll.  128. 
Klliolt  V.  Loalv,  83, 


TALJLK   HF    A.Mi;i;i('.\N    TASKS   CITKIJ. 


i:ili<jtt  V.  ihuu.,  r.o. 

—  r.  Iloiii.  I'.i7.  227. 

—  V.  Swuitwoiif,  -102. 
KIlis  V.  Hunlcii,  «:.«. 

.     —    V.  (iravis,  Itt."). 
KliiiPndoif  V.  'lavI'T,  ;!0|,  308. 
KIwdl  f.  C')iaiiil)rilaiii,  111. 
Kly  V.  I'crririi'.  -11  *J. 

—  V.  Scoficlil,  •M'J. 

—  t'.  Wilcox.  '_'IM. 
Emerson  v.  Idall,  I'KS,  202. 
Kmer}'  v.  Owiiirjs,  2'.tl. 
Emmons  i'.  Mm  ray,  215. 
EndtTH  t-.  William's,  228,  229. 
Kiulorr.  Scott.  71. 
)')ii;jli.sh  )'.  Uciiwood,  ',]^Ti. 
K)ilcy»'.  Witlioi-DW.  12'.),  131,  235. 
Erwin  r.  I'arliain,  l.'iti. 

Eslinni  v.  Lamar,  I  SI. 
Evans  V.  iiollin;;,  SI,  334. 

—  V.  Ellis,  ICl. 
Evart.s  v.  Strodo,  300. 
Euing  V.  IScaucliamp,  447. 

—  V.  C'aiitroU,  200. 

Eyre  v.  PotU-r,  14G,  18G,  3C6,  383. 

Fall  v.  Torrcnnce.  311. 
Fallon  V.  Hood,  78. 

—  V.  Kclioe,  2i?5. 
Farley  v.  Bryant,  400,  421. 
Farmers'  Bank  v.  Doiii^las,  200. 

—  of  Va.  r.  Grovci5,  52. 

Farnam  v.   Brooks,  05,    144,  140,   174, 

180,   101,   308,   310,  311,  367,  380. 
Faruswortli  v.  Bell,  108. 

—         V.  Slie])herd,  210. 
Farrar  ?'.  Alston,  78,  04,  3'J5. 

—  V.  Bridges,  41. 

Fnrrell  Foundry  Co.  r.  Dart,  263. 
Farrow  v.  Teacklo,  107. 
Faust  v.  Smith,  240. 
Fnj'  V.  Oliver.  52. 
Fee  V.  Fee,  310. 
Feifcley  v.  Feiglej',  108. 
Fenimorc  v.  United  States,  324. 
Fenno  v.  Say  res,  316. 
Fergcrson  v.  Fcrgerson,  307. 
Ferris  i:  Coover,  133. 
Fersou  v.  Sanger.  300,  407. 
Field  V.  Arrowsinith,  157. 
Filton  V.  I'itneau,  204. 
Finley  v.  Lynch,  209. 

—  V.  Lynn,  419. 

Fireman's  Insurance  Co.  v.  rowcll,  420. 
Fish  V.  Clclaiid,  0(i. 
—   V.  Miller,  178. 
Fisher  v.  Boody.  360. 

—  V.  Probart,  83. 
Fisl>er's  Ajipeal,  173. 
Fisk  V.  Tank,  107. 
Fitzgerald  v.  Foiristal,  375. 


Fil/gornld  v.  Peck,  398. 
FilziiMinoim  v.  Ogdcti,  31fl. 

—  V.  .Io^•lin,  112,  114. 

Filz|patrick  v.  I{ciilty,  .'!i;0. 
Flujig  fi.  .Mann,  Is-j," 'j;',.',,  215,  ."00,  ;il:'., 

318,  3K0,  300. 
Flagler  v.  Preiss,  388. 
Flake  t'.  Brown.  108. 
l''li'ming  »'.  TownHond,  234. 
I'Ictclicr  V.  ('onutionwj'alth  Ins.  Co.,  110. 
Fli-yd  V.  (Jdodwin,  211. 
Foley  ).'.  Cowtjill,  82. 

—  I'.  Kni-ht,  211. 
Folk  t'.  P.inlclmar,  128. 

—  V.  Beidtlman,  132. 
Fooks  r.  Wajiles,  320. 

l*'oofnian  «•.  Pcndcrgrass,  228,  238. 
Ford  )'.  Harrington,  ;;78. 

—  V.  Heron,  180. 

—  V.  Williams,  201,  213. 
Forey  v.  Clark,  300. 
Forkner  v.  Stuart,  211. 
Fo.ster  V.  Gersett,  335. 

—  V.  Gillman,  320. 

—  r.  McGregor,  2n0. 

—  r.  Walton,  228.  231. 
Foidk  r.  McFarlan.s,  108. 
Fowler  v.  Frisbie,  108. 

—  V.  Stoneum,  228,  231. 

—  ?'.  Waldrip,  234. 
Fox  I'.  Clark,  107. 
Frakes  v.  Brown.  198. 
Francliot  )■.  Leach,  328. 
Franklin  Bank  v.  Coopei-,  123 
Franklin  v.  Elzell,  113. 

—  V.  Bidenonr,  144. 

—  V.  Waters,  310. 
Fratt  V.  Fiske,  200. 
I'razier  v.  Gervais,  07. 
Frceland  v.  l-^Idridge,  144. 
Freelove  v.  Cole,  377. 
Freeman  v.  Clute,  I07. 

—  V.  Curtis,  300. 

—  r.  Durgins,  144. 

—  V.  Eatnian,  227. 

—  V.  Harwood,  154. 

—  V.  Lewis,  231. 

—  V.  Rauson,  213. 

—  V.  Staats,  332. 
French  v.  French,  147. 

—  7'.  White,  328. 
Frew  V.  Daenman,  319. 
Frield  v.  Simcoe,  211. 
Frisbie  v.  Ballance,  357. 

—  1'.  MeCarty,  228. 
Frost  V.  Beekmnn,  205,  370. 

—  V.  Kayniond.   lo4. 

—  r.  Warren,  201,  213. 
FuUcnwider  »•.  Hoberts,  229,  281 
Fuller  I'.  Ho;:den,  04. 

—  V.  Perkins,  358. 


'JS 


TAr.LH    Ol"    AMIIUU'AN    CASKS    (lTi:i). 


FulUr  r.  Soars,  'JM. 

Kvilton  Hank  r.  N.  Y.  Ac.  l  anul  Ca. 'JtVi. 

FiirrlH  •■.  Dunhiun,  .S74. 


Gnlmi*  I'.  Aero.  171. 
(;nillicr  r  tJnitli.r.  JTS. 
(.;alntian  r.  I'unnin^lintii,  :!71. 

_       V.  Krwin.    177.  2:50.   nr.:{.  :i7tt, 
:;7i. 

r.nUirnitli  r.  EMor.  1G7. 

Gall-  r.  G'«l«'.  ■«'-• 
_    ,..  Wells,  ns. 
Gnlln;;hcrr.  Wnriiij.  101 
Gnll.-u'o  !•.  GalK-^o.  unrt. 
Gnlliun  r.  Mi('ii-rm.  ".Ji. 
Gallowav  r.  Finliv.  •H'». 
_     '   p.  U<.lm.s,  •»'.». 

—  f.  NVithcrspoou,  1 17. 
Gnlpin  r.  Abbott,  -ir.!. 
(;nli  r.  Dibrtll.  UiVI. 
CJaraiiKT  liank  v.  Wlu-aton.  316,  390. 
(;ardiner  r.  Gardiner,  186. 
Gardner  r.  Booth.  2'IS. 

—  V.  Cole,  :i-,;s,  -j-io. 

r.  Gardner.  4r.>. 

_  r.  MeKweii,  213. 

_  r.  (>j;den.  172,  3-lL 

Garsier  r.  Sinsdl.  301. 
(iarlaiid  r.  IJowlini:,  335. 

—  r.  Cliainbers.  211, 
Garner  !•.  Bird.  132.414. 

—  t'.  (iarner.  39H. 
_     r.  L'orett.  335. 

Garrell  t-.  Grant,  2n3. 
(;urri.-*on  <:  \i'no<,  233. 
(iurrow  r.  Davis.  y4.  325,  3S9. 
(Jarvin  v.  Lowcz.  3U0, 
Guss  V.  Moson.   140. 
Gates  t'.  Cole.  449. 
Gulling  r.  Newell.  SS.*}. 

_      r.  Hodman.  140. 
GazMin  r.  Toyntz.  3'.tt>. 
(Jelton  r.  Hawkins.  4iy. 
General  Insuranee  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Insurance 

Co.,  203. 
G<  (.r'_'e  r.  Uichardson.  100. 
( ,.  tiv  V.  Ilountree.   107. 
(,,1-  .11  V.  Ixve,  211.  233. 
_     r.  llun.lolpli.  3H3. 
(JiddinffHr.  Kaslnian,  103,  313. 
(;itlord  r.  Carvill.  320. 
i;)li<in  r.  Livv,  1«"''. 
Gilbert  r.  Giib.rt.  :J'.»7. 
(.ill-'  f.  Willianis.  30». 
dill  V.  Carter.  2'.»1. 

_  V.  (iriUilli.  2t..'.. 
Gillett  r.  ni.l|.H.  7:1. 
f:illeH|.ie».  M.H.n.  410,  41H,421. 
(.iiii.'.r.-  •.  ^^>r^'an.  4t).V 
«.i..,i  r.  •  r' Wiley.  210. 
GluMr.  BfOWif.345. 


GloMCoek  r.  Batton.  210. 

—  r.  Minor,  'i*^. 
Gins'*.!]  r.  Tiioinns.  330.  410. 
(Uidden  r.  Strii'pler.  14'.».  I'oO. 
(;i"ver  r.  Suiitli,  344. 
(i olden  r.  Maupin,  330. 
i;ood  r.  Hawkins.  DO,  225,  888. 

~    f.  Ibrr,  :i".»7. 
Good.-  c.  <;oode.  4  IS. 
Goodell  r.  Kiel.l,  4  IS. 

—  V.  Taylor.  lUH. 
Goodworth  r.  ruiije.  197. 
(Jonlen-  f.  Downing;,  410. 
(iordon  r.  Tarnielee.  329. 

—  r.  Sizer.  211. 
(iott.schalk  I'.  I»c  Santos,  131. 
Gould  1'.  (iould,  174. 

—  r.  Woinaek,   3.'»7. 
Goust  I'.  Martin,  31S.  319. 
Gouvemeur  v.  Klniendorf,  384. 

—  r.  Titus.  421 ». 
(Jovernor  v.  Freeman.  131. 
(iralwun  r.  Davidson.  3t»3. 

—  r.  Torreancc,  304. 
Grannis  v.  Smith,  I'JO,  390. 
Grant  v.  Cole,  2.'>9. 

—  r.  Lloyd,  224. 

—  V.  Sertziiiijer,  172. 
Grant  land  r.  Wriijht.  00. 
(irapcngether  c.  Fejervury.  42(X 
Graves  v.  (iraves,  '^41. 

—  V.  Mattin-li-v,  416. 

—  r.  Spi.r,  112. 

—  1:  Wiiite,  '.'3. 
Gray  v.  Hartiett,  I'M. 

—  V.  Enunons    103. 

—  V.  Uuinph,  42i>. 

—  V  Tajipun,  1".*8. 
Great  Falls  Co.  r,  Worster,  246. 
Green  v.  Bateiuan,  410. 

—  r.  Drinker.  2is. 

—  r.  (ioodall,  217. 

—  V.  Morris,  Ac.  U.R,  Co..  899. 

—  r.  Tanner.  2o2.  212.  312.  813,88». 

—  r.  Thoiniison,  187,  189. 

—  V.  Winter,  l.VI. 
(ireenwood  r.  Sprini;,  176. 
Greer  v.  Boone,  4  12. 

—  r.  Cahl well,  413. 
Greff'.;  v.  Siiyers,  lis.'). 
(;reii,'^s  1:  \\  (.odruir.  8.1. 
GriHiii  v.  Niteher.  40. 

—  r.  Sketio,  2'.i.-i. 
Gritlith  v.  Fre«ierick  Co.  Bunk,  147. 

—  e.  (iritlith,  241.  371. 
(irinifs  V.  lloyi,  :i7s. 
(iriniT'tone  r.  (arter,  215. 
GriHwold  1:  Haven,  1 12. 

—        c.  Mnith.  244. 
Groff.'.  HariHel.  327 
(irundv  1'.  JackHun,  344. 


TAIJLi:   Ul>'   A.MI.KICAN    CASKS   (111.1). 


li'J 


Culuk  V.  Wnrtl,  'J'JI. 
(Juitli  I'.  Wiiiii',  ::i:7. 
(iiiiitcr  I'.  Tlioiiiiis,  ;{'.»7. 
dutlirit'  I',  (iurdiirr,  l'J7. 
(Juy  «'.  Knris,  l'.»7. 
Gwymi  V.  Jiaiiiilton,  ;<97. 

—  V.  Turner,  liOl. 

liiukwitli  V.  Dawson,  '211,  SltV 
llml<l(ick  V.  Williams,  lnH. 
Iliiili'ii  V.  (uudfii,  4\. 
JIatllcy  i:  Laliincr,  111. 
Ilud^itior  V.  Wiiliains,  201. 
Haines  t'.  Coalos,  l.s8. 
llalU'i-t  r.  Crant,  4'>,  iC,  108. 
linlcoine  v.  Uay,  '201. 
llak'tt  I'.  Collins,  111,  ICl,  305,  32'2. 
Hall  V.  Kdrinf^ton,  20('>. 

—  V.  Fisher,  I'^'.K 

—  V.  Hail.  181-,,  -lU. 

—  V.  II inks,  ;ii:!. 

—  V.  Mayhew,  05. 

—  V.  Kay  lor,  l(i9. 

—  V.  Paisou.s,  210. 

—  V.  rerkin-s,  I'JO. 

—  V.  Uoss,  o57. 

—  V.  Sands,  207. 

—  «•.  Tirunions,  148. 

Ilnlls  I'.  Thompson,  73,  77,  78,  82,  84. 
Halsey  tf.  Whitney,  212. 
lluniiiton  r.  Bcal,  384. 

—  V.  Ganvard.  106. 

—  V.  Kussell.  210. 

—  V.  Smith.  310., 

—  V.  Thomas.  207. 
Hanford  i'.  Artcher,  211. 
llanly  v.  Morse,  244. 
llanna  v.  Spotts,  177,  179. 
Ilannay  v.  Eve,  371. 
Hanzen  v.  Power,  207. 
Hardeman  v.  Burge,  187,  188. 

—  V.  Conan,  335. 

Hardinge  v.  Handy.  14f),  345,  348,  366. 

—  V.  Kanilall,  55,  355,  413. 
Hardy  v.  Summers,  244. 
Harirraves  ('.  Kin;;.  172. 

Harlan  v.  Barnes,  20S. 
Harnian  i\  Abbey,  213. 
Harper  i'.  Reno,  2(i4. 

—  V.  Scott,  234. 
Uarrelli).  Hill,  f.5. 

—  V.  Kelly,  300,  310. 
Harris  t'.  Alcock,  luO. 

—  V.  Arnold,  245. 

—  V.  Carter,  237,  244. 

—  V.  Columbiana  Co.  Ins.  Co.,  420, 

—  V.  Dclaniar,  388. 

—  V.  Fly,  370. 

—  r.  Tyson,  97. 
Harrison  v.  Edwards,  130. 

—  r.  ilir-e,427. 


llarri.-^on  i'.  Talbot,  d't. 
—        V.  Tcnn,  '.UV.i, 
Hnrrisburt;  liank  i'.  Fohlcr,  310 
llarrod  v.  Cowan.  4nK 
llarlman  >:  Hilh  r,  2imi 
Hart  V.  Farniirs'  itc.  Bank,  259. 

—  V.  Stull,  (15. 

—  V.  Tahna<li^f',  ;'.25. 
Hartshorn  v.  Ciiltnll,  447. 
Harvey  r.  Smith,  78. 
llathorn  v.  il(.(l;,ri.s,  328. 
llattin  r.  Detinand,  447. 
Haulcy  r.  Mareius,  154. 
Haven  v.  Foster,  402. 

—  V.  Low,  211,  375. 

—  )'.  Uieliards'iii,  212. 
Havens  r.  Dale,  248. 

Hawley  1-.  Cramer,  158,  169,   190,  303, 

304,  3<i5,  312. 
Hays  »,'.  Henry,  220. 
Haywood  v.  Harsh,  :!09. 
llazanl  t'.  Irwin,  61,  328. 
Ilaz.Mi-d  ?'.  Irvin,  73. 
Head  v.  Muir,  447. 
Henderson  r.  ]  lodd,  207. 

—  V.  Hays,  357. 

—  V.  Railroad  Co.,  61,  114, 115. 
Hendricks  ?'.  Robinson,  45,  197. 
Hennequin  v.  Naylor,  ln9,  llo. 
Henry  v.  Fullerton,  2()7. 

—  V.  Rainian,  168. 
Hcnshaw  v.  Atkins,  4tl. 

—  V.  Bryant,  lo8,  331. 
Ileilbronr.  Bissell,397. 
Hepburn  v.  McDowell,  134. 
Herniance  v.  Vernoy,  105. 
Herrick  v.  Blair,  292. 
Herrin  v.  Libbey,  328.  330. 
Herriiif^  i'.  Winans,  37'<. 

Hester  v.  Memphis  ilc.  Railroad  Co.,  115. 

—  V.  Wilkinson,  2o7. 
Hewcs  V.  AViswall,  24.">. 
Hcvdock  V.  Stanhiipc,  212. 
Hiatt  V.  Wade,  228. 
Hicks  V.  Cram,  127. 
Hickman  v.  Quinn,  201. 
Hiiricinbotliam  r.  Barnett,  129. 
Hiu'^uins  i:  Maver,  215. 

lli-h  V.  Batte,"3*;9. 
Hiffhbcrger  v.  Stitfler,  144. 
Ikildreth  r.  Sands.  200. 
Hill  V.  Bush,  74,  408. 

—  I'.  Paul,  316. 

—  V.  McLaurin,  144. 
Hillnian  >■.  Wright,  421. 
llinihman  v.  Oinans.  397. 
Hinckley  v.  Hendrickson,  327. 
Hinde  t'.  Lonijworth,  206,  204 

—  V.  Vattier.  237. 
Hitchcock  V.  Covill,  108. 
Uite  V.  Hitc-.  oil. 


30 


TAIILK   IH'    AM  KICK  AN    CASKS   CITKD. 


Ilobbii  r.  r.il'..,  Jl  1. 

—  V.  Piirkrr,  \'i«. 
HiKkoiibun:  r'.  t'nrlisle,   1<''7. 
H<><>  I.  SHtiltorn,  I»'7. 

MdtTiiiaM  M.ninlxmt   ('•>.   r.  Cmiilurlaiul 

Colli  Co.,  1. '«.'>,  ir.i. 
Uoffmnn  Sloiun  Coal  Co.  v.  Cumbcrlniul 

Conl  Co.,  'J'.'T. 
Hoitt  r.  Holconib.  44.  79,  328,  3C8. 
llok.-  .'.  H.n.lcrson,  1»6. 
HolhriH.k  I'.  Hurt,  :!S8. 
IIoM.n  r.  Crawfonl.  190. 
lloUiiiirsworth  I'.  LuptoD,  447. 
Holly  r.  Yoiini;,  :{-J8. 
IKiliiies  r.  liitrker,  4^T. 

—  r.  Clurk.  :5-J.V 

—  V.  Fro>li.  I'.Hi. 

—  V.  Holmes,  -I-IO. 

—  f.  Stout.  -Jts,  :316. 
Hood  r.  Falinc'?l«H'k,  '2y.K 
Hoopcs  V.  Hunu'tt,  ic:}. 
Hope  I'.  Kvnns,  3:50. 
Hopkins  v.  Stump,  .158. 

—  r.  W.'bb.  'i'J'.t.  . 
Ilopkirk  r.  Kamlolph.  206. 
HoplKT  I'.  Lisk,  ;;2ii. 
iioppini:  V.  r.uriiuiu,  200. 
liorein  r.  LibbiV,  XUK 
liornbeck  r.  Vaniiiefrc,  211. 
HotclikUs  V.  Fortsoii,  117. 
Hou^h  I'.  Hunt,  1S4. 

—  f.  Kiohardson,  75.  98,  114. 
HousntoirK-  Uaiik  c.  Martin,  2r,2. 
Hovey  i*.  lilaticlianl.  'I'tS. 

How  f.  Waymaii.  2n'.t. 

—  V.  Way-man,  2:il. 
Howard  v.  Curp<ntor,  4:39. 

—  r.  Etlgill,  !»•». 

-  r.  Hoi'V,  107. 
._       r.  Wartiild.417. 

—  r.  Williams,  228. 
Howe  V.  iri-lio[i,  197. 

_    r.  W  ani,  198. 
Howfll  r.  Baker.  1«9. 

—  r.  Uaimoin,   IftS, 
Howlond  V.  Seott,  i:Jl. 
lloyt  r.  .SlieMon,  \i'.'>H. 
Hubbard  r.  TuriitT,  201. 

—  t'.  .Martin,  4o2. 
Hucknbce  r.  Auller.  327. 
llii<i<-n  f.  Ware,  li'.t'.t. 
Iluli.al  r.  Wil.Ur.  22R.  234. 
Hill  I -on  V.  Warner,  20(5. 
Hutrv.  Eurl,  15.'.. 
Hu'^hca  r.  Bloomer,  .'Mrt. 

__       V.  Kdwnrdi,  204. 

—  V.  Slonn,  75. 
_       r.  r.  S..  244. 

Hnmbarl  c  Trinity  (luircli,  30t,  310. 
Hun-lley  r.  W'.!.b,'21 1. 
Hunt  V.  BtM.  i&7,  l»i. 


Hunt    f.  Fnenutn.  419. 

—  V.  MrC(. 11.  :i:il. 

—  .'.  Mo>.re,  55,  li;t.  114. 

—  r.  Kousnumier.  397,  428. 

—  r.  White.  4IH. 

—  r.  Wieklifle.  30|. 
Hunter  r.  Foster,  IJS.  l-t'.i.  I'.'iV 

—  r.  (Joudy,  4"''.'. 

—  r.  Hudson   Kivi-r  Iron   Co. 

li:i. 
Iliintinpton  i^  Hall,  105. 
Iiur>l  «•.  Hurst,  447. 
llu-on  ii.  ritman,  41'^.  420. 
Hu-ton  1'.  (.'antril,  3o'.i. 
Hutchinson  v.  Brown,  147.  383. 

—  V.  Kelly,  19S.  207. 

—  V.  'iiiwial.  147. 
Hyatt  V.  Boyle.  litO. 
lly<le  I'.  Tanner,  425. 
llyni'  1'.  Campbell,  417. 
Hvnsim  r.  Himn,  :;•>«. 
Hy.slop  V.  Clark.  I'.'T,  212. 

Ide  t'.  Orny,  91. 

He}'  I'.  Niswani^cr,  207. 

Inualls  r.  M..ri,'an,  258. 

liii,'.rson  f.  Starkweuthor,  173,  816 

lnu;raham  v.  Wheel  r,  212. 

—  r.  Mor-an,  47.  103,  319. 

—  V.  rhiliiiH,  207,  206. 
Irick  I'.  Fulton,  410. 

Irish  v.  Morse,  21i>. 

lr\  in::  '••  Tliomas,  70.  300. 

Irwin  I'.  Shcriill,  324. 

Is.iac  V.  (  hirk,  101. 

Isham  r.  Bennington  Iron  Co.,  264. 

Ivers  V.  Chandler.  131. 

Izard  r.  Izard.  2"  13. 

Jackson  v.  .\shton.  343. 

—  .•.  Henrv.  310. 
_  r.  Hodu'es.  216. 

—  V.  lnal.il.  132. 

—  V.  Leek,  2f.O. 

—  r.  Myers.  198. 

—  I'.  Parker,  190. 

—  V.  I'liyne.  44S. 

V.  Summerville.  318. 

—  r.  Town.  228. 
James  r.  Bird.  375. 

—  t*.  Drake,  235. 

—  V.  l.ani,'don,  144. 

—  I',   MeKernan.  172. 
Jaine'ion  r.  Clns-e'itk,  154. 
Jankin  r.  Simpson,  52. 
Jarvi»  I'.  DaviN.  210. 
Jasper  v.  Hamiltoi.  i'O.  I04 
Jcniison  v.  WoodrulT,  329. 

—  t-.  i:idrid;;e.  238. 
lenkinn  r.  Bodlev.  244.  370. 

_      e.  Hoi;tj,  225. 


TABLi:   or   AMKKICAN   CASKS   ("lTi:ii. 


:ji 


Jrrikins  V.  I've.  ISO,  :io;{. 
JeiikH  tt.  Fritz,  lo,'). 
.Icnuiiij^.s  r.  (  Jm/a",   r>2. 

—       V.  Wi.ud,  'Jtll,  '^(iS. 
Ji'wctt  K.  rainier,  ;J18. 

—  f.  Ivtit,  :>'*. 

—  »'.  Millir,  151. 
Jiilins  V.  Ri'iiriloii,  'Jf,!. 
•loliiKsoii  I'.  Itiiiiult.  i:i7. 

—  t'.  |;<iylcs,  :ii:). 

—  1'.  ]{ruii(ii.s,  'J<»I. 

—  t'.  ('<>o|irr,  ;;7s. 

—  V.  llriidlcy,   111. 

—  f.  .loliiisoii,  178,  303. 

—  t'.  Jones,  :;;!.'>. 

—  V.  Nohli-,  JU. 

—  r.  I'l-yor.  im. 

—  V.  Til  went  I,  nil. 
•Tolinston  *'.  ("<)|>i',  lot'.. 

—  V.  (Maiiccy,  215. 

—  V.  (i\\i\\\mwy,  2il. 

—  V.  Ln  Molte,  225. 
Jones  V.  Kollc;*,  IIS 

—  V.  BninifonI,  258. 

—  V.  Comer,  '.i'i'>. 

—  V.  Conoway,  ^10. 

—  V.  fJrccn,  tti. 

—  V.  Hail,  233. 

—  V.  Henry,  203. 

—  V.  Plater,  0(5. 

—  V.  Il.-ad,  318. 

—  V.  Sass.r.  12J). 

—  f.  WatiiiniJ,  402. 

—  r.  ZollieoHVr.  321. 
Joplin  V.  Dooley,  33t). 
.lopjiing  V.  Dorley,  334. 
Jonla  v.  Lewis,  211. 
Jordan  v.  Hyatt,  2112. 

—  V.  Stevc;i.s,  309. 

Joiizin  V.  Toulmin,  55,  95,  187,  189,  408. 

Joy  V.  Sears,  211. 

Joyce  V.  Taylor,  Gl. 

Jud£:ei'.  ^Vllkin3,  188. 

Junction  K.  K.  Co.  v.  Harpold,  132. 

Kanndav.  Xorth,  172. 

Kane  v.  Bloodgood,  304,  808. 

Kayscr  v.  Sicliel,  328. 

Kearney  v.  Taylor,  159,  173,  225. 

Keaton  v.  Cobbs,  154. 

Kcebler.  Cummins,  144. 

Keelerv.  Vantuyle.  131. 

Keen  r.  Coleman,  11 9. 

—  V.  Ilartman,  11 9. 
Keenan  ;•.  Mo.,  »te.  Ins.  Co.,  260. 
Keislder  v.  Savaire  Manuf.  Co.,  172. 
Keitcrea.se  v.  Levin,  318. 

Keller  v.  Nutz,  264. 
Kelly  I'.  McGuire,  144. 

—  f.  Pember,  326. 
Kelsey  v.  Ilolihy.  184. 
Ki'mjiner  v.  (.'luircliill,  200. 
Kendall  v.  Lawrence,  243. 


Kennedy  v.  .lolinHon,  lo;i. 

—  /'.  KiMiiicdy.  42,  157.  3C7,  »b8 
Keniiey  i'.  Udall,  In). 

Kint  t'.  Carcaud,  tWJ. 
Ki'iizon  V.  W'eltz,  397. 
Kepner  r.  iJuekliart,  196. 
Kerr  v.  Kitclifn,  211. 
Kershilbruek  v.  l/iviiiijston,  418. 
Ketelium  i'.  (ntliti,  4().'>. 

—  v.  Stoiit.f,!;. 

—  V.  Wnl.-on,  211. 
Kettlewell  v.  Slew.irt,  212. 
Keutfjen  v.  Purks.  328. 
Keyten  v.  iJranfonI,  419. 
Killouirli  V.  Steele,  rj'.>. 
Kimball  V.  Cunnini^iiam,  62. 

—  V.  Huteliins,  231. 
Kimmel  t'.  Mesri^lit,  1"J7. 
Kiny   r.  Cohon,  141. 

—  >:  Dooliltle,  397. 

—  r.  Ka^He,  325. 

—  V.  Hamilton,  357. 

—  V.  Morford,  306. 

—  V.  Wilcox,  207. 
Kinij.sbury  v.  Taylor,  106. 
Kinney  ?•  Kiernan,  52,  327,  329. 
Kintzin'    >'.  ilcKlrutli,  97. 
Kirby  r.  Inj^ersoll,  41,  197. 

— "    r.  Taylor,  178. 

—  ?'.  Turner,  178. 
Kirtland  v.  Snow,  210. 
Kissam  v.  Edmoiidston,  200. 
Kite  v.  Lumpkin,  4o,s. 
Knabe  «•.  I'crnot,  172. 
Knobb  V.  Lindsay,  187,  363. 
Knolts  i:  (linger,  266. 
Knouff  t'.  Tiiompson,  134. 
Knowlton  ;'.  Niekles,291. 
Knox  c,  Tliomp>oii,  245. 
Krmckolls  v.  Lea.  299. 
Kuykendall  v,  McDonald,  21L 

Lackey  v.  Stouder,  105. 
Lacy  I'.  Wilson,  316. 
Laidlaw  v.  t^rj^an,  55,  97. 
Lamb  v.  Harris,  407. 
Lands  ;•.  Aidd,  Io5. 
Lainkin  v.  lieese,  419. 
Lammott  i'.  Eowiy,  399. 
Lamont  v.  Stimson,  239. 
Lanca-ster  v.  Dolan,  228,  229,  231 
Land  v.  Jeffries,  196. 
Landis  v.  Brant,  244. 
Lane  v.  Borland,  210. 

—     V.  Kobinson,  109. 
Lang  V.  Lee,  213. 
Lan:;den  v.  Woodfield,  234. 
Lan-rford  r.  FIv.  19s. 
Lankton  v.  Scott,  292. 
Lansinij  v.  Woodwortii,  197 
Larkins  »•.  Bid.de,  41'.». 
Lassellc  c.  Barnett.  IMl,  2:;7.  264 
L-.itter  V.  ilorriooa,  227,  23(». 


32 


TAiu-K  ni'  A.Mi:i:iiAN  (  Asi:s  tiTi;i). 


Ijjwrcnco  r.  I'onu\.i«  n,  4oO. 

_       r.  riuik. -JLV 

_       r.  Uati.l.  m. 

—       I .  Turktr.  '2!>9. 
Ijiwnson  «'.  UiKT,  lul. 
Law  ton  V.  Low,  -Irt. 
Liii  V.  Pckf  Co.  L'ojuuT  Co..  '211 
Lcncli  r.  FowUt.  U>>s. 
Loarv  «•.  Cox.  HIT. 
l.onvilt  r.  riilmir.  U'.'T,   1  U. 
Locutt  f.  Siillci',  in."., 
l.cilpira  r.  IJiiiltT.  231. 
Lfc  I'.  Fox,  177,  178. 

—  r.  !,»■«•.  2SS. 

—  f.  I'atillo.  -iHO. 

—  r.  I'orlor.  l'M\ 

—  r.  Vniiirlinn,  :<:>0. 
Loftwicli  r.  Oriii'.  ImO. 
Lo-rnlt  r.  Sall.i'.  If. 4.  170. 
Lt'^riT  r.  HoniilVe,  tltJ. 
l>';;ro  r.  Lord.  '2t>'.t. 
l.ciirh  r.  rniiiip,  357. 
I^-isinrins:  f.  lUaik,  IfiO. 
lA'itcnsdorfcT  »•.  l»<-ll>liy,  418. 
Lonimon  i'.  IJrowr,  :tI2. 
I>onnox  V.  Kotr»-l>\  IM. 
Lcoimrd  r.  Atislin.  ll'.t. 

—       r.  I'itiif^,  :ilO. 
Lcrow  V.  AViliuartli,  ~0Q. 
ho  Hoy  t'.  rialt.  420. 
LftchtT  V.  Norton,  210. 
Lewis  t>.  A.  J.,  Iti.'i,  109. 

—  V.  Bairti,  2t;i. 

—  V.  lU-attv,  ;;i9, 
_     V.  IIoii>ton.  ■MO. 

—  ,..  Lov.'.  22;»,  2:!1. 

—  f.  McLrinoii,  (•>!.  86. 
V.  t?aii  An'oiii  >,  i;i2. 

Lexington  r.  Lin-lsay,  o"8. 
I^yne  v.  Hank  o)  Ky.,  206. 
Lies  V.  Stubb,  40\K 
Lislitfool  r.  ("olyin,  220. 
Lisjlitney  v.  Mooiiey,  204. 
Liu'on  p.  Uo'.;cr8,  420. 
LiTlard  >■.  MMlee,  ViS. 
Lilv  '■•  Wolf.  2i'.4. 
Lincoln  r.  WriJit.  2:10. 
t    udhav  f.  Liiulsav,  808. 

_  *    V.  Uankin.  310. 
Lines  v.  Darden,  4 :!'.». 
Linku  B.  Smith,  21  i. 
Lippincolt  i'.  Hark<T,  212. 

V.  Stoki^*.  4:jy. 

Linliev  f.  Clavton,  2'»'.t. 
Liltlifield  Hunk  .•.  I'e'.k,  115. 
Livermore  v.  Jolmfon,  Ulo. 
Livingnton  v.  Littell,  211. 

i..  I'lTU  Iron  Co.,  97 

Lloyd  9.  HnwHtfT.  lob. 

—     r.  Lvncli,  ill'.i. 
I^.hdell  f.'Hak.r,  111, 
I/xkbrUliTL-  r.  loMer  W  ni,  48,  f.l. 
LockwooJ  «•  Nelion,  202. 


Locke  I.  Arinstronj.  008,  811. 

—  r.  '^trvens.  ".Si. 
Long  r.  Mil  kiiiL'I'otioiu,  105 

—  r.  I.oML'.  :iT7. 
Longworlh  r  Hunt.  a05). 
Looniis  ('.  \\  ainwright,  6%. 
Lord  f.  Col  ley.  320. 

—  V.  (ioddiird,  :!20. 
Lothrop  i>.  King,  215. 
Love  r.  L.'ik    r.' 

—  r.  Mrnxton.  312. 

—  i:  Leu,  177. 

—  I.  Oidhani.  32«. 
Low  I'.  Triadwfll.  304. 
Lownde.s  v.  Clii»(»hn,  399. 
Lowry  f.  llrown,  2lo. 

—  V.  rin>on.  2ol. 
Luea.s  i'.  Mitchell.  374. 
l.iidlow  I'.  Coojii-r.  304. 
Luj-in  r.  .Marie.  InS.  109. 
Lujitun  I'.  Cornell,  2ii0. 

—  I'.  Jaiuiey,  3o3. 
Liitz  r.  Sintlnenin,  292. 
Lukiii  V.  Aird.  190. 
Lvmau  V.  Little.  421. 

•_      ,..  U.  S.  In.s.  Co.,  42L 

—  r.  Itica  Ins.  Co.,  410. 
Lvnch  r.  Tibbits,  50. 
Lvndc  V.  Mcliregor,  200, 

Lvne  .'.  Lank  of  Ky.,  227,  228,  263 
Lyon  I'.  Uiclunond,  397. 

—  t'.  Sunders,  397. 

—  f..Tullmadgc.  184,402. 

Maco  r.  Hover.  140. 
Mackie  v.  Cairns,  190,  197. 
Mackinley  .■.  MctJre-or,  109,  110. 
Macon  f.Sliijuierd,  210. 
Maddox  i:  ^iniiiionH,  190. 
.Mngniac  v.  Thoinp^^on.  202,  398. 
Malione  »'.  Ueevis.  327. 
.Maine  V.  King.  lo.'>. 
Mallorv  t'.  Lcacli.  320. 

—  "   r.  Moddir.  310. 
Manc.-i  V.  Diirant.  217. 
.Man.v  i:  Killou-li.  210. 
MaidialtanC.  r.  Kvertson,  197,  198,370 
.Manicv  r.  Killongli,  211. 

MannV.  lU'lt.rly,  144.  190. 
Manni  V  v.  Later.  334. 

—  "    r.  I'ortcr,  S2.  HM. 
.Mail/  V.  Ueeknian  Iron  Co.,  419. 
Marl.nry  e.  Hn.oks.  212. 

—  '    »•.  SloneHtreet,  05. 
March  v.  ^Veekerly.  131. 
Mark  r  Lawrence,  101. 
Markhani  r.  Todd,  3»i7. 
.Mar.-liall  v.  I'.illing-lra.  144. 

—  r.  It.iclianfin,  '>25. 

—  r.  (iruV.  32'>. 

—  I',  .lov!  105,  173,  174. 

—  V.  Martin,  114. 

—  r.  Stephen H,  157. 


TAin.i:   OF    .V.MIIKICAN    (ASMS   (ITI.I). 


33 


—  V.  Maitiii.  111. 

f.  I'ciiiiDck,  'Xi. 

—  V.  l!aiili-tt,  'J'JI. 

—  V.  Ifi.l.crts  r.2. 

—  V.  \\  liarloii,  111). 
Miirviii  V.  ]5iiiii.l(.  f.:.,  116. 
Mustjii  I'.  Bilker,  ;i7."i. 

—  I',  ('n.-l)y,  7i'..  112. 

—  r.  Martin,   l.">7. 

—  r.  I'aiiii',  'J.i  I. 

—  r.  IJoiriTs,  'J(i7. 

—  V.  \ViUiaiiia,  144. 
Massie  i'.  (irci'iihow,  'ioS. 

—  V.  Watts,  172. 
Mosson  V.  IJdvet.  rj2. 

Mas?.  Turnpike  Co.  r.  Field,  310. 
Ma.-^sy  I'.  Mellvain,  2;>l. 
— '  V.  Moll  wain,  21t>. 
Malta  V.  Henderson.  :;:>5. 
Matter  of  Oaklev.  l.')l. 

—  l*(>st."it;4. 

Mattlieus  V.  Dczaud,  157. 
Matthews  v.  Bliss.  '.l7. 

—  V.  Demerritt,  248. 

—  V.  Liirlit,  172. 

—  V.  Wari.e,  rJ7. 
Mattincflv  v.  Nve,  200. 
Mattock  v.  Todd,  77. 
Maxwell  v.  Kennedy,  ."11. 

—  V.  ret'.in.ar,  147. 
Mayer  v.  (.lark,  211. 
Mayfield  v.  Averitt,  210. 
Mayor  ct  (.'.  C.  v.  Williams,  228. 
McMlerty  v.  I'onovcr,  i:i2. 
Mc.\ninch  i'.  Laii^lilin,  ;>'J7. 
McBride  v.  Wilkiution,  444. 
McCail  I',  llinkk-v.  212. 
McCartv  v.  Bee,  1.57. 
MeCauley  v.  Rhodes,  203. 
M'l'ianalian  >:  Henderson,  154. 
McClure  v.  A?-libv,  310. 

—  V.  Miller,  lo."),  219. 
IirCIiire  V.  Purcell,  374. 
Jlct'obb  I'.  Richardson,  409. 
M'Conikc  v.  Sawyer,  385. 
McConipe  v.  Sawver,  207. 
McL'ormiek  v.    Malin,    144,      183,    187, 

2117,  389. 

—  I'.  McMurtrie,  133. 

—  !■.  Wheeler,  2r)9. 
M'Coun  V.  Delaney,  C.">,  334. 
McCoy  V.  Arteher,  105. 
McCraw  i'.  Davis,  14i>. 
McCrea  i'.  Leonstretli,  05. 
McCulloch  V.  Scott,  :;oo. 
MeDaniil  v.  Moorman,  144. 
McDonald  v.  Fitldan,  172. 

—  v.  Tralton,  73,  74. 
iFDonald  V.  Lin.luli,  131. 

—  V.  >eilson,  300,  391. 
McElderry  r.  shijiley,  414. 
McFerran  v.  Taylor,  01. 


.M'Ferran  r.  'I'ayior,  4o.s. 
.Met; inn  v.  Sliaeiri-r,  157. 
.MefJnire  r.  ('allidinn,   52. 
Mehitosh  r.  Smit!i,  1 J9. 
.McKay  v.  SifnpHon,  41'.». 
M'KilVey  (..  Tnil.y,  i:i2. 
MeKclway  v.  Conk,  4o5. 
.McKinJey  /'.  Irvine,    155,  172. 
McKinney  v.  I'ort,  Ktl. 

—  r.  Pinrkard.   190. 
McKnifjlitv.  Keliett,  3'J8. 

—  V.  Taylor,  3o;i. 
McLau;jhlin  r.  Batik  of  Potomac,  208. 
.McLean  v.  Partoii,  303. 
.MeMeehen  v.  (Milliner,  240. 
.Me.Mill.n  I'.  .M.Millin,  419. 
Mc.Miirray  ;•.  St.  I.fiuis  Ac.  Co.,  391 
Me.Naiii^hton  v.  ParliidLje,  299,  420. 
M'Neely  v.  liueker,  229. 

McNeil  V.  Turner,  344. 

Mcpherson  v.  Walters,  129. 

McRimmers  v.  .Martin,  211. 

McVickar  v.  Woleolt,  417. 

MeWhorter  v.  Mc.Mahon,  357. 

Md.  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Dalryniple,  155,  161. 

Meanor  v.  Hamilton,  101. 

Mechanics'  Bank  of  .\lexandria  v.  Seto.i, 

202. 
ISIcek  ('.  Perry,  177. 
Meeker  v.  York,  172. 
Meliick  V.  Kobertson,  397. 
Merchants'  Kat'l   Bank   v.    Nat'l  Eaglo 
Bank,  4 1 5. 

—  Bank  r.  Mclntyrc,  405. 
Merriwcatlier  v.  lierran,  97. 
Merr}' «'.  Bostwick,  2o0. 
Michael  v.  Michael,  387. 

Michoud  V.  Girod,  156,  158,  298,  304, 

300.  308,  309,  347. 
Middleton,  &c.  Jiank  v.  Dubuque,  202. 
Miles  i\  Barry,  310. 

—  V.  Stevens,  405,  416. 
Miller  v.  Bradford,  205. 

—  V.  Colton,  359. 

—  )•.  ConkliiiEj,  212. 

—  V.  Fraley,  258. 

—  I'.  Loi-kwood,  213. 

—  V.  Mclntyre,  304. 

—  V.  Pancoast,  211. 

—  V.  Piatt.  129. 

—  V.  Thomj)son,  207. 
Miller  i-.  ToUeson,  389. 
Mills  ('.  Camp,  210. 

—  r.  Frvin.  104,  105,  344. 

—  >'.  Mills  101. 

—  )'.  Warner,  210. 
Miner  v.  Grani^er,  lo7. 

—  V.  lilcdbury.  79. 
Minturu  v.  Seymour,  420. 
Mi.>;sissippi  Union  Bank  i-.  WilkinsOD,  77 
Milchell  V.  Beal,  190,  197. 

—  I'.  Denson,  439,  441. 

—  V.  Minus,  111. 


;;i 


TAl'.l.i:    or     AMI.KICAN    CASKS   CllKD. 


.MiicluU  r.  M.'on-,  l.M. 

—  r.  ri.'ki'lt.  ant. 

—  r.  Tln>iii|>>()ti,  ;!!<'. 

—  r.  Wonlrii.  ins.  100. 

—  V.  ZiiniiKriimn,  (U. 
Mix<r  V.  (Vtliiirn,  lort. 
Moiili-  ('.  litK-hanni),  418. 
MihUImv*'  (JnrtituT,  In.^. 
M.-trit  r.  Winslow.  'J'.m. 
Muncrioff  r.  (Joliislxiroii;;!!,  225. 
Moiu'll  r.  (.\il(K'n,  Si'.. 
Montvillo  r.  Jiiuiiihton,  120. 
MiKirc  f.  Autlitor.  2i>l. 

—  r.  Hliuivrlt,  ISC. 

—  V.  Hrnckfii,  1  »'>!•. 

—  V.  Clay.  312,  IJTO. 

—  V.  Ciri'i-n.  IJi'i". 

—  r.  Uw»l.  2'.t'.t. 

—  r.  Maiulell)iuim.  172.  173,  17J. 

—  r.  Moori',  171. 

—  V.  Tiirhfvillo.  7S. 
Mnnlocai  v.  Taiikersh'y,  328. 
Mi.re  I'.  Siin'illiiirj;,  335. 
Monhend  r.   Hunt,  225. 
Moroland  r.  AUhinson,  335,  399. 

_       r.  Li-mMctnr,  234,  244. 
Morcy  V.  For.-iytli.  I'.'S. 
Morgan  v.  l>li.->,  '•'!,  •125. 

—  r,  Morgan.  214. 

—  V.  Ittj.ul'lic,  211. 

—  V.  Siiapi',  74, 

—  r.  Spangl.T.  128,  398. 
Morlanil  r.   lili.^s  131- 

Murris  Canal  Co.  v.  Emmett,  73. 

—  r.  Muoro,  128. 

—  V.  I'hiliber,  188. 

—  V.  Uoss,  448. 

_     tf.  Temll,  241.  ' 
Morrifwjn  v.  McLoihI,  147. 
MorliiniT  r.  I'rilcliaril,  399. 
Moiton  V.  ll();jilon.  128. 

—  f.  Uobanls,  2ti(;. 

—  f.  Seull,  112.  :i25. 
.Mo.Hby  V.  Wall.  4 IS,  421. 
.Moucley  r.  ISuck,  173,  345. 

_  V.  .Mostlt-y,  231. 
.Mos«  V.  l)aviii.son.  384. 

—  V.  Ki.l.ih',  30S. 
.Motley  r.  .Moik-y.  178. 
Motl  i;.  llarriii;jt<'n.  •<*<• 
Moultrie  f.  Jtnniii;:^,  228. 
.Mulford  V.  .MiniU,  If.l. 
.Mullen  I'.  WilM>n,  207. 
Munclorf  r.  Wickfr^linm,  IIU 
.MuuMon  ••.  Hnllowcll,  ;Uo. 

—  r.  (JuinhuT,  325. 
iiurray  v.  Hollou.  'J«>4,  370. 

—  V.  \i\zK'*.  -12. 

—  r.  Vandi-rbilt,  150. 
My«r9  r.  M  V'T!*.  1 54. 

—  r.  I'crk,  31rt. 

—  9.  Kivcft.  17K. 
Mycr**  Apiwal.  172. 


Nnliours  v.  Cork«*,  404. 
Nnnoo  r.  'riionij'Hoii,  447. 
Xniit/.  I'.  Mt  rii.THon.  :i7<>. 
Napi.r  v.  Khun.  lo;{,  ;;22.  388. 
Nartis.-a  v.  Wutlian,  78,  158. 
National  Fire  ln«.  Co.  r.  Crane,  420. 

—  Hank  r.  Norton,  202. 
Neal  V.  Williaturt.  313. 
Nenle  v.  llayllirojt,  241. 
Nerlv  v.  Anderson.  190. 
Nelli's  e.  (lark.  ::74. 

Nei.-ion  r.  Carrington,  299,  306. 
Ncsbit  f.  I.ocktnan.  170. 

—  r.  Di-rby,  212. 
Novin  I'.  Helknaj),  128. 
Nevius  ••.  Dunlnp,  410. 
Newcomer  v.  Kline,  419,  420, 
Newman  r.  Clia|iman,  200. 

—  r.  Kdwanls.  132. 

—  r.  M.'ek.  187,  188.  225. 

New  Orleans  U.  K.  Co.  »•.  Williams,  115. 
Nichols  t'.  Mielinels,  328. 

—  V.  Tinner,  lo8. 

—  V.  Kevnolds,  204. 
Niles  «•.  Ande"rson,44,  355,  868. 
Niolen  v.  lJouula«.s,  212. 
Noble  V.  (Joo;;in.q,  05. 
Noonaii  »'.  Lee,  334. 

North  Halt.  Huilding  Association  f.  Cald- 

well,  158. 
North  r.  Hcldcn,  201. 
Northrop  i'.  Graves,  402. 
Norton  v.  llootcn,  105. 

—  J'.  Young,  327. 
Nowlan  v.  Cain,  78. 
Nult  >•.  Nutt,  448. 

N.Y.Howery  ln.s.  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  Ins.  Co.,l  19. 

Obort  V.  Obert,  300. 

O'Hrien  v.  Coulter,  40,  199. 

Oelder  v.  Walker,  311. 

Odlin  «'.  Cove.  133. 

Ohio  Life  Ins.  Co.  r.  Lcdvnrd,  206. 

Oliver  i-.  I'iatt.  155,  238,'241.  308. 

Ornisby  r.  Hakenell,  447. 

O.-^born  I'.  Carr,  323. 

Osborne  v.  Moss,  375. 

—  r.  rhelps,  418. 
Osgood  V.  Franklin,  187. 

—  f.  Lewis,  106. 
Oswold  r.  MetJehee,  01. 
Overton  r.  I'helan,  107. 
Owing's  Case,  144,  140,  341,  887. 
Owings  I'.  J  nit,  312. 

I'adget  »•.  Lawrence,  319. 
I'ago  t'.  Henf,  50. 
_    V.  Booth,  304. 

—  V.  Ford,  107. 
I'aigi'  V.  Naglee.  154. 
Fainter  i'.  llemlerson,  164. 
Palmer  v.  Crosn,  149. 
Parhani  v.  I'arham.  418. 

—  V.  Kanduli)h,  bl. 


1  AIlLi;   OI'   A.MEIilCAN   CASKS   CITi:!). 


3,J 


•  'iiriOi  I'.  Mii:|iliirf,  'Jnti. 
riirktr  V.  lUAuiv.  '.'•  Itl. 
I'jirkliuiii  t'.  McCriiiT,  151 1. 
—       V.  Kiin(l"il|)li.  'M!S. 
P'irkluirHt  V.  Alexander,  172. 
I^irkiiison  r.  llannii,  'Jn]. 
rarkiimn  v.  A\'el(li,  "Jo?. 
I'arks  V.  Willai<l.  '_'•'.(>. 
I'arrett  v.  Slimihliiit,  'Ji'i4. 
I 'arson  v.  lliiu;lies,  '.",tS. 
Purtels  r.  llniris,  -'02, 
I'atlfii  V.  (;«rney,  It-I. 

—  r.  llolli.layslture:,  214. 

—  t'.  Moore, '-J  IS. 
I'nttoii  I'.  Taylor,  ;;:i  J. 

—  t'.  MrClare,  ]■■}.■}. 
I'ayne  v.  Hodden,  105. 

—  V.  Sinith.  «'J. 
Peabody  v.  Fenlon,  320. 
Peacock  i'.  lUack,  :',0i. 
Pea'rcc  v.  Plaekwell,  102. 

—  r.  Cliastiiin,  IIPl. 
Pcarrelt  v.  Sliawbliut,  !•'). 
Pcnrsoll  J'.  Cliaiiin,  10,  297,  327 
Pearson  v.  ]>aiiiel,  '2;i7. 

Pense  v.  Saliin,  ln7. 
Peay  r.  Sublet,  107. 
Peck  V.  BaUhvin,  r>0. 

—  V.  iJrewer,  :}30. 

—  V.  Land,  200. 
Pcdeiis  V.  Owens,  CG. 
peers  V.  Dnvi.*,  :'.2.'). 
Penibertun  i'.  Staples,  .368. 
Pe:ideru:ast  V.  Ue.d,  88. 

I  endlcton  v.  Galloway,  309,  366 
i'tqiieno  r.  Taylor.  109,  328. 
Pt  rsniis  r.  Jones,  310. 
reni;-iie  v.  Wood,  44. 
Perins  V.  Dunn,  200. 
IVrUins  v.  C'artmell,  304. 

—  1'.  .McGavock,  96,  97 

—  V.  Rico,  77,  8."). 

—  f.  Webster,  66. 
Perkins  r.  AVrii;lit,  357. 
Perry  v.  Crary,  311. 
Petere  v.  Fo-slcr,  127. 
Peters  I'.  Kloreneo,  o'.>7. 

—  V.  Coodrieh,  236,  264. 

—  V.  Newkirk,  2',t2. 
Peterson  c.  (M-over,  419. 
Petric  V.  Wrifi^ht,  384. 
Potters  I'.  Sniitli,  201,  209. 
Pettes  Hank  r.  Whitehall,  307 
Pettibono  v.  Stevens,  200,  383. 
Pettigrew  v.  Chellis,  325. 
Petty  I'.  Petty,  220. 

Peyton  i-.  Butler,  84,  347. 

—  V.  Stith,  304. 
Phalcn  V.  Clark,  43,  310,  374. 
i'iielan  I'.  Crosby,  327. 
Phillilis  V.  Moore,  1-17. 
I'hel|isi  I'.  C»verton,  165. 
Piiettiiiiace  V.  Saylcs,  96,  210,  216, 


!SJ. 


Phipjun  I'.  Sfickify,  225. 
Pialt  I',  ViiMi.r.  30;:. 
I'bnrd  I'.   .MeCorniiek,  78. 
Piekj'tt  t'.  Barron,  310. 
Pierce  v.  I'aiinei',  lUO. 

—  r.  .laekHoii,  2P2. 

—  r.  Nesbitt,  IT).'). 

—  V.  Perkins.  201.  • 

—  .•.  Wilson.  :;20. 
T'ierpont  »•.  (irahain,  212. 
Pike  i:  Wietinir,  loO. 
Pillow  I'.  Shannon,  318. 
Pillsi)ury  v.  Pillsbtiry,  172. 
I'inkhani  v.  (Jear,  102. 
Pinneo  V.  Iliixi^ins.  21.'>. 
Pinsoii  )'.  Ivey,  3oK,  ;;2l. 
Pintard  v.  Martin,  3o7,  33.'5,  336. 
Pitney  V.  Leonard,  23(>,  238. 
Pitts  V.  Cottinpjhnin,  81,  86. 
I'ixley  V.  Bennett,  108. 

Place  )'.  Lanijworth,  213. 
Planters'  P^ank  i'.  Henderson,  209. 

—  and  Merchants'  Bank  v.  WiHis, 

210. 
Plaster  r.  Bur<,rer,  22.".. 
Piatt  V.  Oliver,  224. 
Pleasants  v.  Boss,  447. 
Plitt  ex-pnrte,  1(14. 
Pontjue  V.  Bovcc,  4."..  200,  209. 
Poillon  I'.  Martin,  171,  321. 
Pollard  V.  Paiijers,  103,  209,  300,  333. 
Pollock  V.  Wilson,  6."). 
I'oor  )'.  Price,  44,  5ip. 
Poore  V.  WoodbuPD,  329. 
Pope  V.  Andrews,  106,  385. 
Porter  v.  liank  of  Rutland,  262. 

—  V.  Sevey,  266. 
Portland  P>ank  v.  Stacey,  211. 
Polts  i:  Black  well,  231." 
Poulet  V.  Johnson,  240. 
Powell  V.  Bradlee,  108,  SSL 

—  V.  Clark,  66. 

—  V.  Jcfferies,  319. 
Pratt  V.  Carroll,  357. 

—  V.  Philbrook,  96. 
Prentice  >'.  Achorn,  147. 
Prentiss  v.  Russ,  04. 
Preston  r.  Crofut,  313. 

—  V.  Mann,  128,  133. 
Prevo  V.  Walters,  312. 
Prevost  t'.  Gratz,  304. 
Prewitt  V.  Copwood,  377. 

—  ?'.  Graves,  336. 

Price  V.  Grand  Rapids  ct  Ind.  R.  R.  Co., 
163. 
—    V.  Sykes,  108. 
Prie-^  I-.  Evans,   l.'iO. 
Pringle  v.  Phili]>s,  237. 

—  V.  Samuel,  66,  82,  88. 
Prior  I'.  Kinney,  106. 
Proctor  V.  Tl.rall,  307. 
Prout  v.  Robert.^  lo:?,  335. 
Putnam  >■.  I'utch.  211, 


3G 


TAULi:  or  .\Mi:i:i(AN  (Asr.s  crn:!). 


l^>iiarlcii  ».  Liircy.  1">7. 

IJiiick  f.  t>luyvc»j.nt,  :t:>S. 

nti.l.liffp  r.  Wi-littimn.  417. 
liilroiul  To.  V.  Kowo.  •2".i".». 
i;:iiii>f..r«l  r.  ItniiisfonI,  297. 
IJn  liijiy  f.  J'>yrc,  217. 
lintiHd'ill  r.  Kiliriirton.  215. 
Kniulr.  Ko(lini:ton,  291. 
Itniuliill  r.  lli>\v.irci,  HTl. 

—  f.  I'liiilips.  19S. 
Randolph  v.  lh>s->.  1'.<S. 

—       r.  Wiuc.  :;i>J. 
Rankin  r.  Unllownv,  211. 

—  f.  L<hUt.  212. 
Rn|>a1io  >:  Jloieworthy,  178. 
Ratcliffe  r.  Sanirst.m.'jUy. 
Rmiirlcv  »•.  sprimr.  i:!l. 
lluwiloii  V.  Hliitchf.nl.  ;•«. 
llawU-y  V.  \\  ixninitr,  Vl. 
Raymoml  v.  ^-iinonson,  310. 
Rend  r.  Cramer,  •'■"i,  413. 

—  i:  slatiT,  :n:{. 

—  V.  Wnriier,   172. 
Kciidiiig  f.  Trie  •,  1<>I. 
lU-ardon  I'.  Seavy,  :U»C. 
Reed  r.  Ilarbcr.  105. 

—  t-.  C-..].-.  2I-.1. 

—  r.  .li'W.tt.  211. 

—  V.  Noxoii,  2'  i»,  385. 
Reed's  Appeal,  2."..s. 
Reese  v.  Wymnn,  03,  421. 
Reidr.  Stanley,  107. 
Reinick  v.  Smith.  3'.U. 
lUiniiker  v.  Sniilli,  147,  S.')! 
lUsiTVoir  Co.  r.  Cliiise,  3'J'J. 
Re3nolds  «•.  Vance,  22". 

—  V.  Vilas,  220. 
Rice  r.  riiirlinm,  \UTt. 

—  V.  McDonald,  239. 

—  f.  RawlinfTS,  3r)7. 

—  V.  \Vliitr,  :!lo. 
Richards  v.  Fridley  WriLjlit,  fiO 

_       r.  llutit.  210. 
RichardBou  v.  Admns.  27.'>. 

—  V.  r.liu'l't.  421. 

—  I'.  .lolinson,  l(t6. 

—  p.  Liiincy,  17S. 

—  r.  Spencer,  l.'»7. 
Richmond  »•.  Cur<liip.  11*0. 
Ricki-r  f.  Ham,  227,  231. 
Rid^jway  r.  Indt-rwood,  230 
Ricmcr  r.  Cant  ill' >n,  4  It*. 
Ripdon  r.  Martin,  2'.»2. 
ItinjjKold  V.  Rintrt:"hl,  158. 
]lin(;o  i:  Rinn«,  17rt. 
Jt)n;fr"w  •'•  ^Vard^•^,  132. 
lUjipy  r.  Crant,  H«. 
River  r  I'lankroad  Co.,  116. 
R<.U)in«  r.  r.ml.r,  i:.5. 
lUiUrUi  r.  Anderuon,  '/tJO,  313. 

—  V.  .Stanton,  240. 


iColiiiison  ••.  liaii-',  I'.'s. 

—  V.  .1  notice.  127,  laa. 

—  I'.  KiveH,  103. 
Rodper«  v.  Ndes.  In7. 
Rodman  v.  Cilley,  1 17. 
Roe  I'.  Jerome.  127. 
Ropers  v.  Atkinson.  41V. 

—  f.  .IniieH.  211.  2 IS,  2r,a. 

—  r.  SautiilrrH,  3t»7. 
Roosevelt  r.  I'uiton,  til. 
Root  V.  KreiK-li.  li'M. 

—  V.  Reynolds,  200t 
Rose  r.  Mead.  224. 

—  r.  Mynatt.  lt»r>. 
Roes  t'.  Ilonston,  2.'>8. 

—  t».  Vestncr,  3t)8. 
Roth  I'.  Palmt-r,  :i2«. 
Rowan  r.  Adams,  240. 
Rowley  f.  lii-rclow,  108,  109. 

Uildd  r.  Joins,  4  17.  , 

Kuddi.k  V.  l.e-jTiratt,  310. 
Knirner  v.  Met  onneil,  410.  421. 
Riimph  I'.  Al't-rcrombic,  333. 
Russell  V.  Hranhnm.  '.•o. 

—  c.  Clarke,  4.'i.  325. 

—  V.  Kearney.  22S. 

—  V.  Siinson,  \W,  207. 

—  »'.  \Vint's,  213. 
Rutherford  c.  Uidf,  144. 
Rutland  r.  Taiu"'.  120. 
Rutledpe  V.  smith,  420. 
Rutter  f.  Rarr,  211. 

'_      V.  Rlake.  327. 
Ryan  v.  Blunt.  4  17. 

Saddler  v.  Robinson,  299. 
Sanders  i'.  I'tpoor,  211. 
Sandford  e   Handy,  K8. 
Sands  I'.  Codwis",  34.^. 
Sands  i«  llildreth,  IVS,  202. 
Sanger  v.  Craiper,  204. 

_       •■.  Ka.stwoud,  228,  231. 
S.nlein  Inilia  llubber  to.  «•.  Adam*,  101. 
Snllee  e.  Chandler,  1.57. 
Salmon  i:  l5enn.-lt,  200,  228. 
Saltonstall  v.  tJordon,  124. 
Sanborn  «•.  Osi^ood,  327. 

r.  Stetson,  384. 

_       f.  Wood,  299. 
Saunders  v.  Ten  ill,  203. 

—  V.  llattrnnnn,  78, 
_        r.  Turbeville,  218. 

Savaire  f.  Rerrv.  419. 

—  V.  Murphy,  2o7,  208. 
Sawyer  e.  Crane,  205. 
Sched<la  r.  Sawyer,  172. 
Schermerhorn  v.  (ieorgc,  77. 
Schultz  r.  Moon-.  201. 
Sehutt  V.  I.arjre.  204. 
Schwartz  i:  W  euddl,  ir.8. 
Bcoll  V.  iWimer,  94. 

_    I-.  DuiMvip.  4n. 
V.  Krcehiml.  177 


TAULi:   OF   AMEIIICAN   ("ASKS   CITr.I). 


37 


Scolt  i»  Calliiu-lii-r,  lilO. 

—  I'.  Ilix,  in.'i. 

—  f.  rcrrin,  :i:i7. 

—  r.  IJcnc'k,  10(5. 

—  r.  WiiiiHT,  415. 
Scranfon  v.  (lark,  1(I5. 
Scijiir  r.  I'Mwiirdn,  174. 
S(.'i,Mir  i:  l''iiii,'li'y,  408. 
Si'ltlcii  I'.  M\<'rs,  ;!87. 
Sdi^maii  v.  Ivalkmuii,  108. 
Si'viiii;  I',  (inli',  '21(5. 
Sewall  I'.  (Hi. Moil.  233. 

—  V.  Hussfll,  1<.I7. 
Spwaril  V.  .lackson,  '2ii8. 
Sp.\ton  V.  Wlu'afou,  14!).  206. 
Seymour  v.  Dclancy,  3(i3. 

' —       V.  Freir,  ;;n8. 
Sliftcki'lford  I'.  Ilatuilev.  61,  300. 

—  f.  Handy,"  320,  327  337. 

Slmv-'frtjr  t'.  Sli-adc,  55. 
Sliald-  J'.  Davis,  397. 
Slianiioii  V.  Wliito,  31 1. 

—  r.  Marinadiikc,  174. 
Sliarinaii  i;  .Mill^T,  4  21. 
Sliarj)  V.  New  York,  325. 
Shaw  V.  IJainluirt,  32'.t. 

—  V.  Levy,  228,  231,  234. 

—  1'.  Stine,  74. 
Phcarin  t'.  Futon,  304. 
Sherkell  v.  liopkin-,  104. 
Sliepjjerd  j'.  Ik-vis,  3t'.:{. 
Shejipard  v.  Turpin,  213. 

Sliermnn  v.  ('lianii>lain  Trans.  Co.,  105. 
Siterry  t'.  Stansbury,  178. 
Sherwood  v.  Sutton,  31(X 
Shields  v.  Anderson.  210. 

—  r.  Hoijiiolo,  345. 
Shinnis  v.  Coil,  202. 
Siiipp  ('.  Swan,  ^.^'H). 
Siiirras  v.  CraiL',  201,  2G5. 
Sliort  V.  Stevenson,  182. 
Sholwell  V.  Murray,  3'.)7. 
Simeon  v.  Wilson,  140. 
SinuTson  v.  Mank  of  Decatur,  211. 
Simmons  v.  North,  410,  420. 

—       V.  Vulean  Oil  Co.,  182. 
Simpson  i'.  Dalj,  100. 

—  V.  Craves,  202.  203. 

—  V.  Mitehell,  207. 
Sima  J'.  Steele.  374. 
Skeel  i\  Si>raker,  240. 
Skiliman  v.  Teeple.  400. 
SkiniuTt'.  Sirouse,  131. 
Skinninn;  |.  Ncufville,  132. 
Skipwitli  I'.  Cuiiiiin^li.'iin,  212. 
Skirvini?  f.  Neutville,  131. 
•^kriiie  v.  Simmons,  307. 
Slaek  V.  yiai.:\'j::\n.  358. 
Slade  V.  Van  Veehten,  154. 
State  iv  .MeCowen,  3n8. 
Slater  i:  Maxwell,  187,  224. 
Sloo  I'.  Law,  150. 
blothower  v.  Gordon,  65. 


Smith  r.  Ali.ii.  4  IK, 

—  V.  l'.aiM-o<k,  7t'.,  307. 

—  V.  I!i>li<ip,  31(». 

—  r.  lleatty,  07,  146. 

—  V.  iJrotirc-rline,    108. 

—  1'.  Ciiek.  04. 

—  r.  Dull,  24»1. 

—  V.  i:ili..tt.  377. 

—  V.  iivaiiH,  00. 

—  »'.  Fly,  05,  311. 

—  V.  (Jreenlec,  225. 

—  V.  (Jreer,  2<)3. 

—  V.  Hall,  20(5. 

—  V.  I.aiisin^j,  173,344. 

—  »•.  ]VI.D(,iif,'al,  307. 

—  t'.  .Mciver,  4  1. 

—  r.  .Mitehell,  01,  03,  326. 

—  i:  Oliver,  258. 

—  V.  Onion,  2iil. 

—  1'.  Owens,  215. 

—  ?'.  I'riuee,  204. 

—  V.  Uirhanls,  01.  73,  79,  102. 

—  V.  Kuhcrt.soii,  417. 

—  V.  Siiaiie,  240,  24.5. 

—  r.  Smitii,  110,  100,  220,  327,  448. 

—  V.  Stone,  215. 

—  ?'.  Tall.ot,  311. 

—  V.  Tiiomjison,  105,  IGO,  806. 

—  V.  Yule,  240. 
Smolson  <fc  Co.  v.  Franklin,  95. 
Sinull  t'.  Jone-s,  225. 
Sneli^rove  i-.  Snel^'rove,  132,  369. 
Siielsun  &  Co.  v.  Franklin,  103. 
Snyder  v.  Warhasse,  440. 
Somervillc  v.  Ilorton,  207. 
Sonthall  V.  Clark,  178. 
Spaldini^  v.  Fisher,  197.. 

—  V.  Hedges,  79. 

—  V.  Vandercrook,  327. 
Sparks  v.  White,  400. 
Speise  v.  McCoj*,  228. 
Spence  v.  Buren,  306. 

—  V.  Whitaker,  78,  161. 
Spencer  t).  Speneer,  301. 
Spindler  ?'.  Atkinson,  154. 
Splaun  )'.  Martin,  2o2. 
Spollord  r.  Weston,  206. 
Sponabler  i'.  Snyder,  258. 
Spraj^ue  v.  Duel,  140. 
Springes  V.  Harven,  420. 
Stadtler  i:  Wood.  210. 
Statlbrd  V.  Ballou,  236. 
Staines  v.  Shores,  225,  325. 
Stamps  r.  IJraev,  387. 

St.  Andrew's  Church  v.  Tomkins,  32a 
Stanton  v.  Green,  375. 
Stark  V.  Littlcpaije,  375. 
Starr  v.  I>ennett.  90. 

—  I'.  Yandersheyden,  164. 
Slate  V.  Paup,  397. 

—  V.  Keed,  205. 

—  V.  Keigart,  «07. 
Stebbins  «•.  Lddv,  00,  S3,  367. 


.■k> 


taiuj:  or  amuuk'an  cases  citj:i>. 


StoilwoU  r.  Andorson,  4lt>. 
rStcclc  r.  Kllninkor.  'J'Jrt. 

—    r.  Kii.kl.',  It:..  H);i.  aofl. 

_     V.  W  <.rll.iiis;ton.  166,  188,  374. 
Steers  V.  II-'jicIjiikI.  380. 
Stop  V.  Alkirr.  :.:;ri. 
Slorii.t  r.  I  ni:t',  •'''''". 
Stcrry  f.  Anion,  T29. 
Movcns  r.  llv«l«-.  t,'2.  328. 

—  r.  M"..rse,  'i:i\. 

—  V.  Smith.  Ktfi. 
Sitwnrt  r.  llo::tr^.  'Jt'O. 

_      r.  Stownrt,  1S4.  220. 
Mickncv  i'-  Hosniim.  !57''>. 
SliUs  i"  Uliito,  3'.;:),  S81. 
Stockton  r.  Ford,  l()li. 
SlwKlurd  r.  Hart.  414. 
St»>ne  r.  Denny,  •'».%,  326. 

—  V.  (lOVcr,  3'Jl'. 

—  V.  lliunsuv.  335. 
Stoolfuos  «v  Jenkins,  148. 
St<irer  r.  H:irrin;;fon,  201. 
Storrs  r.  liurkcr,  131.  132,  307. 
Movnll  r.  Kortheru  IJank  of  Mississipi>i 

368. 
Sioverr.  Fnrnior.'A-  Merc1innl6Cttuk,21 1 

—  V.  llcrrington,  2U2. 
Strang  r.  Heacb,  419. 
Street  i:  Dow,  299. 
Siribling  v.  Uoss,  197. 
Strong  V.  Harnes.  105. 

—  I'.  Ellsworth,  132. 

—  r.  IVters,  78. 
Stuart  V.  Luddinpton,  127. 
Stiibbleti.  Id  f.  Patterson,  187. 
Stuyvesant  r.  Hall,  264. 
SuniUKTS  I'.  IJebb,  197. 

—        V.  Uoos.  213. 
Sumner  v  Khodes,  264. 
Surmbcrger  »•.  ^Vebs•er,  246. 
Sutphen  i'.  Fowler,  391. 
Swain  r.  I'erine,  220. 

—  f.  Seainens,  129. 
Swavze  V.  IJurk,  161. 
Switzer  v.  Skiles,  225. 

Talbot  »•.  Subrcc,  345. 
Tarbell  v.  Howman,  05. 
Tote  V.  Connor,  308. 

—  r.  Tale,  207,  220,  229,  230,  810. 

—  r.  Ix-t'U'alt.  227.  228. 

—  r.  WliitiK-y.  181. 
Toylor  v.  H  nhain.  3o8. 

—  t..n:iv.  12«. 

—  r.  Fleet.  73.  385. 
r.  Fro^t,  325. 

—  r.  Ileriot,  266. 

—  r.  Kn-.x.  173. 
_  f.  MillH,  211. 

—  r.  NuhoUon.  447. 

—  ».  Snnd.H.   lo7. 

—  r.  Tftvlor.  180. 

—  r.  Zipp.  128. 


Tnvmon  v.  Mitchell.  300.  333. 
Trickle  r.  llail.y.  173,  3S4. 
Te«.vdal<>  I'.  Atkinson.  231,  233. 
Ten  Eiek  e.  Simpson.  131. 
Terry  r.  Iteleht  r,  211. 

—    I'.  I.nek,  ln2.  104. 
Thayer  i-.  Thay.r,  220. 

—  !•.  Turner.  327. 
The  Diflilletl  Spirit.i.  259. 
Thonmfl  r.  (Joodwin.  2ot). 

—  r.  (;riin<l  (iulf  liank,  264. 

—  r.  MeCormick,  418. 

—  V.  I'erry,  t-5. 

—  t.  Sheppenl.  lit. 
Thompson  Scale  .Manuf.Co.i'.().-good,410 
Thompson  i'.  lUaiuliard. '111. 

—  I'.  Da>  i.s.  22."). 

—  f.  Donijlierty.  207. 

—  f.  .laek.-on,  366,  416. 

—  V.  Lee,  194. 

—  V.  Sanborn,  131. 

—  V.  Sunders,  389. 

—  f.  Sod.  3.'.8. 

—  V.  Tliompson.  198. 
Tliornton  r.  Davenport.  201. 
Thorp  V.  MeCulluin,  l.'iT. 
Thur.-ton  i-.  lilanehnrd.  328. 
Tibb.s  V.  Timberlnke,  300. 
Tiekner  v.  Wishall.  197. 
Ticknor  v.  AVi.';nall,  213. 

Ti!t  V.  ^Valker.  2ol. 
Til;,'bman  r.  West.  132. 
Tilton  ('.  Huiiter.  2Ci4. 

—  1'.  Nrlson,  i;!2. 

—  r.  Tilton.  419.  420. 
Todd  I'.  Heliidiet.  2iVt. 

—    t'.  Grove,  I'.Mi. 
Tomlin  v.  Den.  IM. 
Tomlinson  v.  Savajje,  335. 
Tompkins  r.  IVriell.  316. 

—  v.  Wh.'.ler,  212. 
Tongue  r.  Nulwell.  T-'S.  131,  132. 
Torrance  v.  Lutiisdi'n.  417. 

Torrey  r.  Hankof  New  Orlean-<,  173,  174. 

Tonle'r.  lloit.  210. 

Towle  V.  Lcavitt,  225. 

Town  V.  Needham.  129,  389. 

Townsend  v.  CoaU-s,  91. 

Tracy  »•.  Saekett.  H4. 

Trillion  Hanking  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  50. 

Trexter  v.  Miller.  44S. 

Trigg  r.  Head,  91.    124,   364,   397,  400, 

408.412. 
Triplet  r.  Hailev,  121. 
Tripp  I'.  Chil.ls,"  196. 
Trotter  V.  Wal.'<on.  20a 
Troup  r.  W  Odd.  224. 
Trouj)e  I'.  Smith.  3lo. 
Tru.sdule  v.  V  >r<\,  218. 
Tinst  V.  Delaplaiiie.  225, 
Tryon  v.  Whitmar-.h,  :?25.  ' 
Tucker  ••.  Andrews.  217. 

—  IV  Maddii!,  421. 


tai;m:  or  American  casks  cni.i). 


39 


Turni-r  r.  ('Iicfsi-iiuiii,  Ihitj. 

—  V.  lliix'iciiiH.  101. 

—  f.  Na\i;;iili(jn  To.  82. 
Tyler  i'.  IJliuk,  ;m:.. 

—  V.  OiirdiKT,  IMt'i. 
Tyson  v.  lliirdcsly,  »'ir>. 

—  r.  rassiiiore,  IJOS, 

IMiiicrr.  Hills,  211. 

llniim  Caiml  Co.  v.  Llovd,  202. 

Uniti'il  SlaUs  IJnnk  r.  jlntli,  212. 

—  I  IKS.  Co.  J'.  Sliriver,  2C.'i. 

—  f.  Hop,  1'.»7,  210. 

—  I'.  Mojirof,  421,  451. 
Cpton  V.  Vail,  a2f.. 

N'nli'iitiiie  v.  Stewart,  1()3. 

Van  Cliff  v.  Fleet.  1(18. 

Viin  Cortland  v.  UiuK-iliill,  21)1,  447. 

Vanderpoi'l  v.  Kciinu  v,  17iJ. 

Van  I)orn  v.  Kobinson,  211. 

Van  Epjjs  v.  \'an  Ejips,  154. 

Vannickle  r.  Malta,  177. 

Van  "Wyck  r.  Seward,  VM),  198,  206. 

Varick  v.  \'>vi';;<x^,  :ilO. 

Varliek  v.  Eiiward.s,  304. 

\'auj;han  r.  Tracey,  245. 

Vuasej'  V.  Doton,  75. 

Viazic  V.  Williani-s,   112.  17^,   187,226, 

300,  534,  337,  344,  366. 
Vorplank  v.  Sterry,  227,  232. 
\"iek  V.  Keys.  211. 
Villard  r.  Roberts,  264. 
Villines  v.  iS'orllcct.  157. 
Violett  V.  Violctt.  202. 
N'oorhees  r.  l)e  Meyer,  417. 
Voorliies  v.  Eai'l,  52. 
Vose  t'.  Ilolcomb,  212. 

AVade  v.  C.recn,  196,  308, 

—  V.   I'ettebone,  169,  308. 

—  V.  Sherman,  329. 
Wagner  i'.  liaird.  306. 

—  ».  liird,  311. 
Wailes  i-.  Cooper,  241. 
Wakenian  v.  Grover,  212. 
Walden  v.  Louisiana  Ins.  Co.,  119. 
Walker  v.  Ayres,  258. 

—  V.  City  CouH'il.  292. 

—  V.  Collins.  ;  43 

—  II.  (Jdbi-rt,  214. 

—  t'.  McConnieo,   375. 

—  V.  Widkir,  177. 
Wall  V.  Arrinpton,  419. 
Wallace  v.  Barlow,  104. 

—  V.  Craps,  266. 

Waller  v.  Arnii.*tead,  177,  178,  179. 
Wallis  V.  Loubat,  164. 
Walradt  i-.  Krown,  198. 
Walter  r.  Cralle,  231. 

—  r.  Wirticr,  213. 
Walton  V.  Cody,  107. 

—  f.  Wortbinixton,  146. 
Wainbnrzce  v.  Kennedy,  46,  309,  312. 


Waplcs  V.  WaiilcM,  288. 
Warb  »'.  W«-bl)<-r.  427. 
W  arburton  v.  .\ikcn,  374. 
Ward  I'.  Lowry,  213. 

—  V.  Tackard.  103. 

—  v.  Kcyiiol(N,  ;;27. 

—  1'.  Trotter,  200. 
Warden  v.  Fosdick,  104,  820. 
Warner  i:  Haniels,  188,  407. 

—  V.  Norton,  211. 
Warnf)ck  v.  Wri;,'litrnan,  266. 
Warn-n  v.  Hall,  375. 
WaHhlnirn  t'.  .Merrills,  416,  418. 
Wa.shington  Bank  v.  Lewis,  263. 
WasHon  J'.  IJovet,  327. 

—  V.  Kn;u'Iisli,  157. 
Watchman  v.  \\'arv,  212. 
AVaters  v.  Lernmon,  344. 
Watliiiis  ('.  Wallace,  386. 
Wat  .son  ('.  Cox,  420. 

—  V.  McLaren,  127. 

—  I'.  Wells,  2()2,  419. 

—  V.  Williams,  211. 
Way  V.  Cuttinir,  310. 

—  V.  Lyon,  26ti. 
Weatherlord  v.  Fishback,  324. 

—  J'.  Tate,  304. 

Weaver   v.  Carter,  66,  408. 

—  t'.  Shrjork,  425. 
Webb  t:  White,  169. 
Webster  ".  Reid,  293. 
Weedon  v.  llawes,  197,  345. 
Weeks  v.  liurton,  325. 

—  r.  Robie,  327. 
AVciniar  r.  Clement,  327,  330. 
Weir  V.  Hale,  197. 

Welford  >:  Chancellor,  172,  344. 
Well  v.  Silverston,  386. 

—  J'.  Treadwell,  228, 
Wells  1'.  Morrow,  318. 

—  r.  Pierce,  132. 
Wemple  r.  Stewart,  410. 
Wendell  >:  Van  Renssler,  130,  168. 
West  V.  Emery,  325. 

—  V.  Til;,'h'man,  129. 
Wostall  V.  Austin,  335. 

Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Babcock,  358,  407 
Westevcit  r.  Matheson,  189. 
Whalev  ■'.  Eliot t,  314,  405. 
Wheadon  v.  Olds.  405. 
Wheatley  v.  Martin,  447. 
Wheaton  v.  Wheaton,  4o2.        •• 
Wheeler  v.  Sage,  182,374. 

—  V.  Smith,  404. 
Wheelock  v.  Wheeler,  57. 
Whelan  r.  Whelan.  144. 
Whilt  u.  Parker,   177. 
Whipple  V.  McClure,  144. 
White  V.  Cox,  117. 

—  >'.  Hen  man.  367. 

—  V.  Dodds,  32S. 

—  V.  Flora,  IS 7,  191. 

—  V.  Graves,  201,  34. V 


40 


TAr.i.r.  nv  av::uican  casi.s  (iri:i\ 


Wlilt©  r.  .l'>no8,  44. 
--     r.  Mclnv,  891. 

—  V.  Snwvcr,  881. 

—  r.  Sf.ivtT,  77. 

—  ».  TruttiT.  8S5. 
_     r.  Whilv.  875. 

—  r.  Williaiii!',  420. 

—  V.  Wilson.  420. 
\Y>,Hofor.l  K.  MoLeml.  ncr,. 
\V|iitoli<»rn  v.  lliuos.  1I-<V 
Wliiti'siil.s  V.  (ireonlct%  W7. 
Wliitinir  V.  Jdlinsoii.  lUO. 
Wl.itn.-v  ».  Allitiro.  r>-i".>.  880. 
AVIiiUnkor  v.  WiUintiis,  182. 
Wliitfur  <:  Vo-o,821t. 
\Vliittini:ton  v.  Wriijht,  181,  148. 
Wulccr  r.  ("ro.is,  Cii. 
Wirkc's  I..  Clnrko,  208,  228. 
Wickliire  V.  Leo,  884. 

Wiiraml  r.  Sichel,  828. 
Wiir^hs'^vorth  f.  "Steers,  147. 
Willi  V.  K.-e^  l.s'.>. 
Wiley  f.  Fitzimtrick,  405. 
WjlkV  f.  Kitz|mtrick.  ir.ti. 
WilLfortl  V.  (iulbraitli,  G<'.. 
Williams  v.  Cliampion.  400. 

r.  First  I'resbytcrian  Society, 

80.7. 

—  r.  Fowler,  20.5. 
_        r.  Il-lloway,  818. 
1'.  .lidios,  2<ll. 

_        V.  Mai-sliall.  ]:,5. 

—  t'.  I'owcU,  1 7S. 
_        r.  Keeil,  108,  297. 

V.  UofTors,  84.'). 

_        r.  Miiiircril.  41«. 

—  ».  Slaii'^rhter,  lOC-. 

—  «.  Sprit:-.  218. 

V.  SUtU'^UUm,  10ft. 

—  t'.  Stiirtcvaiit.  307. 

—  V.  Wilson,  845. 

—  r.  W(i(kI,  820. 
Willinnison  f.  «rown,  28G,  238, 

_  V.  Kan.y,  104,  855,  307. 

»•.  Williamson,  295. 
Willink  V.  Van.lewear.  y8. 
V.  illin  I'.  Henderson.  418. 

—     r.  ValK-tte,  258. 

Willman's  Appeal,  179. 

WiUon  I'.  ClieNliire.  196. 

_     r.  Fovet.  82H. 

—  f.  Hilly.r,  870. 
r.  IloiiMer,  2tl(i 

—  V.  Jjiir.x.r,  :!K4. 

_     t'  .MiCiilloutfli,  23». 

—  f.  i:u«»ell.  197. 

—  V.  Stall',  108. 

—  V.  Tronp,  1.54. 

—  V.  Wall,  293. 


Wilson  ».  Wult^    in.     140.     188,    294. 

8SS. 414. 
Winchester  v.  Chnrtor,  207. 
WinelireniuM-  v.  Wersiger,  209. 
Wiiiiriitc  r.  Klnir.  299. 
Winsiiipe.  .Kwelt,  447. 
Winxton  V.  (iwatlimey,  78.410. 
Wintirmnti-  e.  SnyiU'r.  ISO,  397, 4oa 
Wintz  V.  Morrison,  KH. 
Wiser  v.  lilaekley,  427. 
Wisernll  >•.  Hall.' 858. 
Wiss  ,:  Tripp.  197. 
Withers  V.  (Ireene,  827. 
Witter  V.  Ili^'htower,  214. 
Wolf  i:  l.uvst.r.  225. 
Wood  ,:  Hall.  225. 

—  V.  Hud-on.  178. 

—  f.  Mann.  81.S. 

_     V.  Mel.illan,  133. 

—  t'.  rntt.-rson,  4U7. 
_     i-.  White,  449. 

Wooden  V.  llaviland,  411*. 
Woodman  v.  Bodli.sh,  198,  231. 

—  V.  Freeman,  47,  340. 
Woodruff  V.  t'ook,  870,371. 
Woods  1'.  North,  885. 
Woodworth  V.  Paiuie.  289. 
Woofittr  V.  Sherwood,  815. 
Woolen  V.  Hmkle,  824. 
Wor.len  v.  Williams,  258. 
Worhind  I'.  Kiinberlin,  201. 
Wormaek  v.  Uo-^rrs,  190. 
Wc.riidev  V.  Wormley,  157,  211,  8ia 
WriKhtV.  Arnold,  178. 

—  r.  lirandis,  200. 
_  c.  Delatield.  420. 
_     V.  Henderson,  207. 

—  r.  Slaiinard,  187. 

—  V.  Wilson.  187. 
_     f.  Wood,  246. 

Wvatt  V.  Avres.  874. 
Wyche  f.  llrcen,  418,414. 

Ycates  v.  Trior,  74. 
Yoder  I'.  Swope,  284. 
Youn'.;  i'.  limnpass,  94,  95 
_       I.,  lovell,  825,  820 

—  V.  Crai;:.  05,  00. 

—  r.  Frost,  804. 

_  H.  Hall,  824.  825. 

_  r.  Harris,  79.  886. 

_  r.  M.(  lure,  210. 

_  v.  Hopkins,  108. 

r.  Stevens,    140. 

_       1.    White,  200. 

Zahriska  v.  Smith.  108. 
Zehuer  V.  Kipler,  82.5. 


FRAUD  AND  MISTAKE. 


THE 

PRINCIl'LES  AND  PRACTICE  OF  EQUITY 


m  CASES  OF 


FKAUD  AND  MISTAKE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

FRAUD. 


SECTION  I.— GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS. 

The  first  province  of  a  court  of  equity  being  to  enforco 
truth  in  the  dealings  of  men,  the  prevention  and  correction 
of  fraud  is  part  of  the  original  and  proper  office  of  the  court.* 

It  is  not  easy  to  give  a  definition  of  what  constitutes  fraud 
in  the  extensive  signification  in  which  that  term  is  undei-stood 
by  a  court  of  equity.'  *  Courts  of  equity  have  always  avoided 
hampering  themselves  by  defining  or  laying  down,  as  a  gen- 

'  Warden   v.   Jones,   23  Beav.  493;  "  Green  r.  Nixon,  23  Beav.  630;  Rey- 

Green  v.  Nixon,  ib.  530  ;    Ayre'a  Case,       nell  v.  Sprye,  1  D.  M.   <fe  G.  691 ;    per 
25  Beav.  528.  Lord  Crunwortli. 


*  By  the  term  fraud,  the  legal  intent  and  effect  of  the  act  complained 
of,  is  meant.  An  illctjal  act  prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  others,  is  a  fraud 
upon  such  rights,  although  the  parties  may  deny  all  intention  of  com- 
mitting a  fraud.     Kirby  v.  Ingersoll,  1  Ilaning.  Ch.  172. 

The  mere  non-compliance  with  the  terms  of  a  contract,  in  not  payinc 
the  stipulated  consideration,  is  not  a  fraud.  Farrar  v.  Br'nlixcs,  3  Humph. 
566. 

4  41 


•5  J  FiiAin. 

oral  ]^ro]>osition,  wliat  sli.ill  he  lirl<l  to  c<>iis(ituto  fraud.' 
Fraud  is  so  various  in  \\>rui  and  coli.r  that  it  is  dijlicult,  it"  not 
inipossihle,  to  contiiio  it  within  tlic  limits  ot'  aiiv  |»ri'c'isc 
dt'tinitiitn.  The  fertility  of  man's  invention  in  devisiui^  now 
schemes  of  fraud  is  so  >i:reat,  that  courts  of  e(|uity  have  de- 
clined the  hopeless  attem]>t  of  cmhracin^  in  one  fornuda  all 
its  varieties  of  fi»rni  ami  color,  reserviiii;  to  tlicmselves  the 
liherty  to  deal  Mith  it  under  Mliatevcr  loi-m  it  may  ]iresent 
itself.  As  new  devices  of  fraud  arc  invented,  they  will  he 
met  by  new  correctives.'  Fraud,  in  the  contemplation  of  u 
court  of  erpiity,  may  he  said  to  include  properly  all  acts, 
omissions,  and  concealments  which  involve  a  hreach  of  lei^al 
or  equitable  duty,  trust,  (»r  contidence,  justly  reposed,  and  are 
injurious  to  another  ;  or  by  which  an  undue  or  unconscientious 
advantap^e  is  taken  of  another.*  *  Frauil  was  delined  by  the 
Roman  lawyers  to  be  omjiis  callidltas^  fallacia,  machinatio 
ad  circumveniendum^  fallendum^  decipiei^dum  altenim  ad- 
hihita.*  All  surprise,  trick,  cunning,  dissembling,  and  other 
unfair  way  that  is  used  to  cheat  any  one  is  considered  as 
fraud.'  Fraud  in  all  cases  implies  a  willful  act  on  the  part  of 
any  one,  whereby  another  is  sought  to  be  deprived,  by  illegal 
or  inequitable  means,  of  what  he  is  entitled  to,  eithi-r  at  law 
or  in  equity.'  By  fraud,  said  Le  Diane,  J.,'  he  understood  an 
intention   to   deceive,   whether   from    an   expectation    of  ad- 


•  Uwlcy  ».  Iloopor.  3  Atk.  279.  *\    Fonh.    Eq.    Hook    1,  c.  ii,   §3; 

'  .'<nwv»'r   I'.   Vernon,    1    Vorn.    387;  Storvf  Ki|.  .lur.  187. 

Lnwl<v"p.  Hooper,  U  Atk.  'J70;    W.'bb  *  l>i;r.  Lil).  •».  tit.  3,  leg.  1. 

V.    ll..rkf.  2  Sell,   .t    L.-f.  cik;.      Lord  »  riii.li.  »:?'.!. 

IlftnlwirkcV   Letter   to    I-onl    Kaiiiiet,  •  (ireen  i'.  Nixon,  23  Beav.  635. 

Life  of   Lonl  Kiiinies  vol.  11.  p.  :iJl  ;  '  2  Eoat,  108. 
Andenion   v.   Fil/.j;eralil,    1    11.  L.  611, 
per  Lord  St  Lc-uuiirda. 


♦  BclchT  r.  Belflier,  10  Ycrg.  121;    Kcnncily  r.  Keniudy,  2  Ala.  rj?!  ; 
Gale  c.  Gale,  10  Hurb.  21'J. 


FRAUD.  43 

vantage  to  \ho  ])arty  liirn>clt',  nr  Cntiii  ill  will    towards  another. 
Collusion  is  considcnMl  in  ;i  ((Mirt  (<l'c(|iiily  as  ;i  IVmikL' 

The  variety  of  lurins  which  fraud  may  assume  would  seem 
to  set  all  systematic  classification  at  defiance,  hut  Lord  Ilard- 
wicke  has  done  much  towards  sim])lifying  that  hranch  of  the 
Buhject  which  relates  to  fraud  in  matters  of  contract  hy  divid- 
ing it  into  four  heads.  First,  actual  lVau<h  nr  </o/im  vialus^ 
arising  from  facts  and  circumstances  of  imposition  ;  secondly, 
fraud  afising  from  tlie  intrinsic  nature  and  suhject  of  the  har- 
gain ;  thirdly,  frau<l  which  may  be  presumed  from  the  circum- 
stances and  condilioii  of  the  parties  contracting;  fourthly, 
fraud  which  may  be  collected  aii<l  inferred  from  the  matter 
and  circumstances  of  the  transaction  as  being  an  imposition 
and  cheat  on  other  persons,  not  parties  to  the  transaction.* 

Courts  of  equity  do  not  affect  to  consider  fraud  in  the  light 
of  a  crime;  it  is  not  their  province  to  punish  ;'  nor  have  they 
any  censorial  authority  ;*  they  interfere  in  cases  of  fraud  in  a 
civil  and  not  in  a  criminal  point  of  view. 
r  Courts  of  equity  have  an  original,  independent,  and  inher- 
ent jurisdiction  to  relieve  against  every  species  of  fraud,^*  not 
being  fraud  of  a  penal  nature.  Every  transfer  or  conveyance 
of  property  by  what  means  soever  it  be  done  is  in  equity 
vitiated  by  fraud.  Deeds,  obligations,  contracts,  awards,  judg- 
ments or  decrees  may  be  the  instruments  to  which  parties  may 
resort  to  cover  fraud,  and  through  which  they  may  obtain  the 
most  unrio:hteous  advantajjes,  but   none  of  such   devices   or 


•  Garth  v.  Cotton,  3  Atk.  Y.")? ;  Brom-  *  See  2  V.  .t  B.  298. 

ley  V.  Smith,  20  Bcav.  671  ;  Spackman's  *  Colt  v.  WooUaston,  2  P.  Wnis.  15fi ; 

Cose,  34  L.  J.  Ch.  321.  Steel   v.    Baylis,    ib.    219  ;     Franks    v. 

'Chesterfield  t'.  Jannsen,  2  Ves.  155,  Weaver,  10  lieav.  297;   Glasae  v.  ilar- 

156.  shall,  15  Sim.  71. 

*  See  Waltham  t;.  Brougliton,  2  Atk. 
43. 


*  Jones  V.  BoUes,  9  Wal.  3G-1 ;  Phalcn  r.  Chirk,  19  Ct.  421. 


It 


rn  Ai'ii. 


iustnuiUMits  will  \>c  jx  rmittiil  \>\  a  i-oiirt  «il'  equity  to  ohstnu't 
the  re(iuisiti()ns  of  justice.  If  a  ease  of  fraud  he  estahlished^ 
a  eiMirt  of  ei|uity  will  set  asi<le  all  transaetioiis  foutidc  d  upon 
it  hy  whatever  niaehiMerv  they  may  have  heen  elfected,  and  not- 
withstandiuix  any  eontrivanei*  hy  wliich  it  may  have  been 
attempted  to  ju-otei-t  them.  It  is  immaterial  whether  Bucli 
machinery  and  contrivance  consisted  of  a  decree  in  equity  and 
;i  purchase  nnder  it,  or  of  a  judn^ment  at  law,  or  of  other 
tran.-^actions  1)ctween  the  actors  in  the  fraud.*"  In  all  ca.ses  of 
fraud,  not  penal,  a  court  of  efpiity  has  u  concurrent  juriudic- 
tion  with  courts  of  law,'-  with  the  sinu^lo  exception  as  to  fraud 
in  obtainini^  a  will.  With  respect  to  fraud  used  in  obtaining 
the  cxecuti(»n  or  settiui;  up  a  will,  the  juri.N<liction  docs  not 
exi.<t.  If  the  will  V)e  of  real  estate  it  is  exclusively  co'^nizable 
at  law;'*  if  of  i)ersnnal  estate  in  the  Court  of  Probate.''  The 
courts  of  ordinary  jurisdiction  being  competent  to  deal  with 
the  matter,  there  is  no  occasion  for  invoking  the  aid  of  a  court 


,  5 


of  equity 

Courts  of  equity  and  courts  of  law  have  in  general  a  con- 
current jurisdiction  to  suppress  and  relieve  against  frand,t 
but  there  are  many  courses  of  conduct  wliich  a  court  of  equity 


'  I5owen  r.  Evans.  2  II.  L  281.     See  IJriijht  i:  Kynon,  1   Uurr.  3".>«;    AJam 

South   .Sea    ("o.   v.    IJuinpstond,  3  Viii.  son  r.  KviU,  2  II.  A*  AI.  71. 

Ah.    140;    Kiiliinond  v.  Tuvl'iir,    1   P.  *  I'owis  i'.  Andrews.  2  Hro.  P.  C.634  ; 

Wmfl.  7:if.;   Kilmer  c.  Gott.  1  \W>.  V.  (J.  Hates   r.  (Jrav.s,  2  Ves.  .1.  287;    Jones 

2:Ji»;   Wliite  r.  ilall,  12  Ves.  :'.2I  :   Il.T-  r.  Gre;r<)ry.  2  D.J.  <L  S.  87. 

tx-rl  f.  Hulkeley,  Kid;,'.  3im);    lJrydi,'e.s  *  Kerriik   v.    Uraiisby,  7   Hro.   P.  C. 

f.  IJranliil.   12  Sim.  3f.y;    Kohinson  v.  437;  Allen  r.  Maepherson,  1  11.  L.  191 ; 

Lord  Vernon,  7  C.  H.  N.  S.  2:il ;   Uogers  Jones  v.  Gregory,  2  D.  J.  »t  S.  87. 

r.  lladl.y,  :W  L.  J.  Kxeli.  211.  » 10. 

'  Colt  V.  WooUttatou,  2  P.  Wiu3.  150; 


*  Pcrigue  r.  Wood,  1  Jolins.  Ch.  401  ;  Nilcs  v.  AmlcTflOil,  T)  How. 
(MiBS.)  865;  Iloitt  r.  llolconih,  2:5  N.  II.  r,'.]r,. 

t  Smith  e.  Mclvcr,  9  Wlicat.  r,:i2 ;  Wliite  r.  JoncH,  4  Call.  '25:i;  Allen 
c.  HopHon,  1  Frcein.  27<»;  lladcti  r.  (!:ir<l<n,  7  Leif^ii,  l-")";  I'oon-  r.  Price- 
■'»  Lfi^li,  52;  Crane  r.  Conklin,  Sa.xtun,  oH\ ;  Dortiiig  c.  Singery,  4  II.  & 
M(  II.  :J5'b. 


KRArn.  45 

construes  to  Itc  riMUiliilciit,  w  hicii  (•imiiot  be  taken  notice  of  hy 
a  court  of  law,*  tlioii;;li  it  is  iKjt  easy  to  dciiiie  the  distinction 
between  that  which  ii  court  of  equity  treats  as  ii  frau<l  and  that 
wliich  is  considered  fraud  at  law.'  "There  is  a  very  great  dis- 
tinction," said  Kimlcivlcy,  V.-d,  iu  Stewart  v.  Great  Western 
Ilailway  Company,'  "  between  fraud  as  regarded  by  a  court  of 
e((uity  and  fraud  as  regarded  by  a  court  of  law.  To  draw  the 
line  between  them,  and  to  give  such  a  detinition  of  the  one 
and  of  the  other  as  should  meet  all  possible  cases  would  be 
a  very  difHcult,  if  not  impossible,  task.  In  order  to  constitute 
fraud  at  common  law,  it  is  not  enough  to  show  that  fraud  in 
the  sense  of  misrepresentation  and  undue  advantage  of  the 
position  of  the  parties  said  to  be  imposed  on  has  been  commit- 
ted, but  the  extent  of  tlic  fraud  must  be  brought  home  to 
the  party  to  the  action  who  is  charged  with  it.  In  the  case 
of  fraud  in  the  sense  of  a  court  of  equity,  a  court  of  equity  will 
take  into  account  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case — not  only 
the  act  and  intention  of  the  party,  but  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  act  was  done ;  the  position  of  the  party  who  is  said 
to  be  imposed  upon;  his  being  inojps  consilU ^  his  being  in  a 
state  of  bodily,  and,  therefore,  mental  weakness,  and  so  on, 
J^on  conatat  these  are  sufhcient  to  constitute  legal  fraud." 

If  there  is  a  full,  perfect,  and  complete  remedy  at  law,  it  is 
not  the  course  of  the  court  to  interfere.**     Ihit  the  eircum- 


'  Troncliard  v.  Wanlej-,   2  P.  Wms.  ^  2  Dr.  &  Sm.  43S.  11  Jur.  N.  S.  627. 

160;  Eutelu,-!-  v.  Butelier,  1  V.  A  B.  98;  *  Newliani  v.  May,  13  Pri.  752;  Deere 

Clarke  v.  Mamiini;,  7  15cav.  167.  v.  Guest,  1  M.  tfe  C.  516. 

*  Traill  v.  Baring,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  521. 


♦  Russell  r.  Clark's  Executors,  7  Crunch,  G9. 

Before  a  creditor  can  obtain  the  aid  of  a  court  of  chancery  to  set  aside 
a  fraudulent  conveyance,  he  must  obtain  judgment,  issue  an  execution 
and  procure  a  return  of  nulla  bona.  Hendricks  r.  Robinson.  2  Johns.  Ch. 
283  ;  Brinkerhof  c.  Brown,  4  Johns.  Ch.  671 ;  s.  c.  6  Johns.  Cii.  139;  Ilal- 
bert  r.  Grant,  i  Mon.  581 ;  Poague  r.  Boyce,  G  J.  J.  Marsh.  70 ;  Chamber- 


.[[]  FRAl'D. 

6tanco  that  relief  may  bo  liad  at  law  does  not  excliulo  the  jiiris- 
(lii-tion  of  the  court.*  The  rule  of  the  court  is  to  interfcro  in 
all  causes  where  the  interests  of  justice  call  for  and  require  its 
interference.'*  Althouirh  a  iiiaii  ni:iY  have  a  good  defence  to 
an  action  at  law,  he  is  n..t  prcrhi.h'-l  from  i.ruceedinj,'  in  equity 
to  restrain  the  action.  It  is  eM()U«>;h  if  ho  can  show  an  equit- 
able case.'  If  there  be  an  e«iuital)le  case  stated  by  the  bill, 
there  is  jurisdiction  to  interfere  by  way  of  injunction,  if  neees- 

•  Evnns  v.  RicknoU.  6  Vcs.  183 ;  Ad-  31 ;  Ch.-storfifM  r.  Jnnnscn  tJ  \c^  IM ; 

nmson  v.  Evitt.  2  H.  A  M.  70;  Wilson  Unitiett  v.  Salmon   6  1).  MAG  40; 

f    Short    f.   11.1    St-.C).  87V»;  llohson  t-.  Slim   ••.  Crouchcr,   1   D.  !•.  &  J.  6^.1; 

Earl  of  ixv.m.  4  Jur.  N.  S.  24:.;  ]>cr  Barry  r.  Crosskey  2  J   A  II    1. 

Lord  C'ranworlh;  Slim  v.  CrouchtT,  1  '  lomil.ou-h  v.  Lender.  1..  L.  J.  Cli. 

I)  F  A-  J   523  ^''^''  I-oi'lon  Aftsurauco  Co.  v.  Moses, 

«  Johnson  v.  Ogilvy,  2  Eq.  Ca.  Ab.  1 1  L.  T.  5:j2. 


Iftvne  f.  Temple,  2  Rand.  384;  Griffin  v.  Nitchcr,  57  Mc.  270;  Jones  r. 
Green,  1  Wall.  330. 

After  judjrtnent  by  default  ajjainst  the  debtor  wlio  has  made  a  fraudu- 
lent conveyance,  an  attaching  creditor  may  jKOCced  in  chancery.  Dodije 
r.  Griswold.  8  N.  H.  425. 

A  iudgmcnt  need  not  be  obtained  when  tlic  fraudulent  grantor  is 

deceased.    O'Brien  r.  Coulter,  2  Bluckf.  421 ;  Birely  v.  Staley,  5  G.  &  J.  432. 

Where  the  claim  is  purely  equitable,  and  such  as  a  court  of  e(|ulty  will 

take  cognizance  of  in  the  first  instance,  it  will  go  on  and  remove  all 

obstructions  to  its  enforcement.     Ilalbert  r.  Grant,  4  Mon.  580. 

If  a  claim  is  to  be  .satisfied  out  of  a  fund  which  is  accessible  only  by 
the  aid  of  a  court  of  equity,  application  may  be  made  in  the  first  instance 
to  that  court.     O'Brien  f.  Coulter,  2  Blackf.  421. 

If  parties  concerned  in  a  partnership  have  dissolved,  and  made  a  dis- 
position of  the  i)roperty  which  is  fraudulent,  as  to  partnership  crclitors,  ii 
court  of  equity  will  entertain  a  bill  filed  by  the  latter,  although  they  are 
simple  contract  creditors.     Lawton  r.  Levy,  2  Edw.  Ch.  I'J."). 

It  is  not  enough  that  tiierc  is  a  remedy  at  law ;  it  must  be  plain  and 
ade«iuate— in  other  words,  as  practical  and  efficient  to  the  ends  of  justice 
and  its  prompt  udminiatratiou  as  the  remedy  iu  eijuity.  Boycc  c.  Grundy, 
3  Pet.  377. 

•  Wamburzee  v.  Kennedy,  4  Dessau,  474. 

A  court  of  ecjuity  will  annul  an  instrument  obtained  l)y  fravid.  nlthoiigh 
there  may  Ix-  a  good  defence  at  law.  Johnson  v.  llendley,  5  .Munf.  21U; 
llcnshaw  r.  Atkin»,  2  Hoot,  7. 

If  the  grantor  is  insolvent,  a  lx>nd  of  conveyance  whi(  h  has  been  ob- 


FRAUD.  47 

Bary,  and  alfio  by  way  of  ordering  tlio  instrmnont  to  be  deliv- 
ered 11]).*  The  question  fur  tbe  eourt  to  eonsider  alwayH  is, 
Mlu'fhcr  tlic  facts  arc  fiuch  as  to  constitute  tliat  kind  of  fraud, 
uhicli  a  cduit  (if  law  wuuld  necessarily  take  cognizance  of  and 
treat  as  a  iVaud  in  tlic  sanir  inanncr  and  lu  tlic  same  extent  as 
a  court  of  eijuity  would  du.*  The  superi'.a-  jjowers  and  effi- 
ciency of  a  court  of  equity  in  niuldini^  its  decrees  so  as  to 
meet  the  cxi^ijcncies  of  each  ])articular  case  and  do  justice  be- 
tween the  |)ai"ties  in  tlic  in<)>t  iniimtc  detail,  is  often  of  itself  a 
sufficient  ground  for  the  exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  in  cases 
where  there  is  a  clear  remedy  at  law.'  In  Colt  v.  AVoollaston* 
it  was  held  that  a  person  who  had  been  induced  by  fraud  on 
the  part  of  the  promoters  of  a  public  company  to  subscribe 
for  shares  might  obtain  his  money  back  by  a  bill  in  equity, 
although  an  action  at  law  might  have  been  brought  for  the 
same  purpose  with  success.  This  doctrine  has  ever  since  been 
recognized  as  correct,  and  it  has  been  frecjuently  acted  on.'  If 
a  case  of  fraud  be  presented  to  the  court,  an  equity  is  at  once 
raised  to  restore  the  parties  deceived,  as  nearly  as  possible,  to 
the  situation  in  which  Init  fur  the  fraud  they  would  have  stood, 


'  Traill  V.  BarincT,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  527,  Western  Railway  Co.,  2  Dr.  <t  Sni.  438 

per  Turner,  L.  J.     tSce  Lloyd  v.  Clarke,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  627. 
6  Beav.  :U)l);   Llewcllin  r.  Tacc,  1  W.  li.  *  2  P.  Wui3.  154. 

28;  Smilli  v.  llcese  River  Co.,  L.  R.  2  '  Green  v.  Barrett,  1  Sim.  45;  Elain 

Eq.  2fi4.  V.  Agar,  2  Sim.  28'.» ;  Stainbank  v.  Fern- 

*  Ayre's  Case,  25  Beav.  528;  Stewart  ley,  'J  biin.  55G ;  Cridland  v.  I)e  Mauley. 

V.  Great  Western  Railway  Co.,  2  Dr.  <k  1  Deg.  (fc  Sm.  45'.t ;  Beecliing  v.  Lloyd, 

Sm.  438.  3  Drew.  227 ;  Bariy  i-.  Crosskey,  2  J. 

'Bright  I,'.  Eynon,  1  I'urr.  30G;  Ayre's  <fe  II.   1;  Henderson  v.  Lacon,  L.  R.  5 

Case,  25  Beav.  52.S;  Slim   v.  Crouehcr,  Kq.    250.     But   see   Thompson   r.   Bar- 

1   D.  F.   <t  J.   523;  Stewart  v.   Great  clay,  9  L.  J.  Ch.  219,  per  Lord  Broug- 
ham. 


tained  by  fraud  Avill  be  rescinded  for  defect  of  title,  altlinugli  there  may 
be  a  good  defence  at  law.     Ingram  v.  Morgan  ct  oL,  4  Humph.  G6. 

There  is  no  distinction  between  cases  of  relief  when  damages  are  occa- 
Bioned  by  framl  and  when  they  arc  occasioned  by  breach  of  contract.  If 
there  is  an  adequate  remedy  at  law,  a  court  of  equity  has  no  jurisdiction. 
"Woodman  v.  Freeman,  25  Me.  531. 


48  ruAin. 

aiul  for  wliicli  (l:iin:ii;os  in  an  adinn  miixlit  ho  a  wry  \nixdv- 
<juati'  ivmiMly.  It  is  no  oltjoctiou  t..  this  c'<|uity  tliat  tho  I'actti 
mav  also  8Ui>i)ort  an  action.'  If  the  aiMi'init  of  danKi<;e  is  asccr- 
taini'il,  «)!*  (•aj)a1»lo  of  ln'in:;  c.i.-ily  ax-crlaimd,  tin-  court  will 
not  send  tho  matter  to  a  jury.'' 

In  tho  viow  of  a  court  of  c(iuity,  a  man  who  has  hcon 
inilncoil  by  fraud  to  convoy  an  estate  remains  the  owner,  sub- 
ject to  the  repayment  of  the  moneys  which  he  has  received." 

A  c<»ntract  or  other  transaction  induced  or  tainted  by  fraud 
is  not  void,  but  only  voidable  at  the  election  of  the  party  de- 
frauded.** The  party  defrauded  has  a  ri^dit  to  have  it  avoi<le<l, 
unless  lie  has  by  his  own  act  put  it  out  of  his  power  to  rein- 
Btate  the  party  ajj^ainst  whom  he  seeks  relief  in  the  jio>ition  in 
which  he  stood  at  tlio  time  of  the  transaction,'  or  unless  some 
innocent  party  would  be  prejudiced  thereby.'  The  transaction 
beinij  valid  until  it  is  avoided,  third  parties  without  notice  of 
the  fraud  may  in  the  meantime  ac(piirc  ri<^hts  and  interests  in 
the  matter  which  they  may  enforce  against  the  jiarty  de- 
frauded.'   Persons,  for  instance,  who  have  been  induced  by  the 

•Blair  v.   Broniley,  2  Ph.  .SCI,  per  die.  L.   IS.   I  Sc.  App.  Ca.  1.50;  Ookes 

Lord  Cottcnhnm;  Walshnm  v.  Stainton,  v.  Tiirquaiid,  L.  11.  \i  A\>\^.  C.x.  346. 

1  D.  J.  «!:  S.  r.7S;  St.  .\iil..vn  t\  Smart,  '  White  i'.  Canien.  Ui  C.  15.  ".»!'.»;  De- 

L.  R.  .'>   l'.<|.  ls3,     Si'c  Harry  i-.  Cross-  posit  and  <;i'iu'ral  Lifi-  Assuraiiec  Co.  c. 

kev.  2J.  .t  IL  I.  infra,  Ayscou;,'''.   «  E.   «fe    H.  7<'.l;  llarke   v. 

»  Intjrftin   v.  Tiiorii.  7  Ha.   7'"..     See  Dickson.   El.    HI.   A   KI.    ItS;    NicoU'H 

nendtTson  v.  Lacon.  L.  U.  5  Kq.  2,'i<);  Casi-,  :{  1).  it  J.  387;  Mixir's  Coso,  4  1) 

coiiip.  Whitiuore  f.  ilackeson,  10  Buav.  «t  J.  r)St). 

12K.  "  Sfliollu-ld  >:  Tcmi.l.T,  1  1>.  .t  .1.  I'l'i. 

*  Stump  I'.  (Jabv.  2  D.  M.  A  G.  630.  '  ( (aki-s   r.   Tiir«iiiaiid,    L.   H.  '1    App. 

♦  Clarke    r.   Dickwon.    Kl.   Bl.   «t    Kl.  Ca.  :i7.'>.     Soc  Kiuj,'iford  ,).  ilcrry,  1 1 
148;   liawlins   r.   Wickliam,  H    1).  »t  J.  Excli.  579. 

iJ22.    Wt'Btcrn  Bank  of  Scolluml  v.  Ad- 


•  Bank  of  Gcor;,'ia  v.  Ili^'ginbottum,  0  Pit.  4S ;  Lockbridj^'C  ».  Fester 
et  III,  4  8can>.  509. 

That  i»  ulisolutfly  v<i'nl  wliicli  tlic  law  or  iIk-  iiiitiiri-  of  tliiiijjs  forbids 
to  bl-  «nforr«-(l  at  all,  and  that  is  relatively  void  wliich  the  law  condnnnH 
hH  a  wronf,'  to  individual-i.  an<l  nfiis/'s  to  enforce  as  to  iheuK  Act.s  tainted 
with  infimiity  may  well  bi-  called  by  some  void  and  by  others  voidable, 
UcauiK',  regarded  in  dilTcreut  aspects,  they  are  botli.     A  contract  may  for 


ruAii).  49 

fraiul  of  tli(>  (lii-fcfors  of  a  ('(niiiiaiiy  to  hooonio  hharelioMcrfi  of 
the  foiiipaiiv,  caiinol,  as  a^Miiist  crcditurs  (»f  the  company,  rcjm- 
(iiate  their  liability  as  shareholders  after  <liscoverin<5  the  fraud.' 

The  case  of  <^oo(l.s,  or  personal  property,  ohtained  by  felony, 
or  by  a  trick,  iiiii-l  be  distin<^iiislici]  IVdmi  the  case  of  «;oods 
obtaiiKMl  by  Iraiid.  In  the  oiiG  case,  the  owner  has  no  mind  or 
intent  to  part  with  his  i)ropcrty  in  tlic  p)od>.  In  the  (jther 
case,  he  acts  with  the  intenti(»n  of  partiiii^  witli  the  ])roperty, 
thuULili  the  intention  lias  been  induced  by  undue;  means.'' 
Goods  obtained  by  felony,  or  by  a  trick,  may  be  reclaimed  by 
the  true  owner  even  from  a  hona  fide  pui'cliaser,^  unless  they 
luive  been  purchased  in  market  overt. 

A  distinction  must  also  be  taken  between  cases  where  a 
man  executes  an  instrument  with  the  mind  and  intenti(jn  to 


'  Oakc3  V.  Turquand,  L.  R.  2  App.  Ca.       Talfomd,  JJ. ;  TTardman  v.  Booth,  1  II. 
825.  tfeC.  8u:5. 

'  10  C.  B.  <.)2I,  'J27,  per  Williams  and  '  llardinaii  v.  IJootli,  1  II.  «fc  C.  803. 


u  time  1)C  voitlaMe  as  aijainst  one,  and  void  as  against  the  others  whom  it 
is  intended  to  ad'iet;  voidalile  as  against  tlie  parties  doing  wrong  and  void 
us  against  tlic  persons  wronged ;  or,  ticc  vo'sa,  voi<lable  in  favor  of  the 
persons  wronr/.d,  and  void  in  favor  of  tlic  wrong-doer;  void  as  not  bind- 
ing to  fultill,  and  voidable  after  fulfillment ;  voidable  in  fact  because  void 
or  not  binding  in  right.  Persons  intended  to  be  wronged  by  a  transac- 
tion are  not  bound  by  it,  nor  are  they  bound  to  reject  it.  They  may 
adopt,  or  contirni,  or  agree  to  be  bound  by  it.  Their  consent,  which,  be- 
cause of  the  wrong,  the  law  considers  as  not  given,  may  l)e  given  after  the 
wrong  becomes  known,  and  then,  if  given  with  the  freedom,  intelligence 
and  deliberation  that  the  law  of  ratification  retjuires,  and  in  a  fonn  ade- 
quate to  the  particular  kind  of  contract,  they  become  willing  parties  to 
the  contract,  bound  equally  with  others.     Pearsoll  v.  Chapin,  44  Pcnn.  0. 

A  party  who  aflirms  a  voidable  contract,  is  bound  by  it  in  all  its  par- 
ticulars.    Galloway  v.  Uolmes,  1  Doug.  330. 

Fraud  in  a  conveyance  can  only  be  set  up  by  the  jiarties  to  a  deed  and 
those  who  have  succeeded  to  their  rights,  and  not  by  third  parties.  Love 
V.  Belk,  1  Ired.  Ch.  103. 

Tbe  assignee  of  a  contract  cannot  take  advantage  of  any  fraud  prac- 
ticed upo&  his  grantor  in  making  it.     CaiToll  r.  Potter,  Walk.  Ch,  o55. 


5()  ruAii). 

cxcvute  it,  thouijh  liis  assent  iiiav  liavc  ln'iii  ohtaiiu'd  by  iVaud, 
and  casos  wlure  a  man  is  by  iVamluleiit  cdntrivance  induced  to 
j)Ut  his  liand  and  seal  to  an  instrument  wliieli  lie  never  in- 
tended and  had  no  mind  t(»  execute,  ll  a  man  liavim,'  no  mind 
or  intention  to  execute  a  particular  instrument  does  what  he 
does  with  the  mind  and  intention  to  execute  a  deed  of  a  ditler- 
ent  kind,  and  lor  a  dillerent  purj)ose  from  that  which  by  fraud 
antl  deceit  wjis  substituted,  the  deed  is  not  voidable  but  void, 
and  no  estate  passes,  at  least  as  between  the  parties  to  the  in- 
strument and  parties  takini;  witli  notice.**  Thus,  where  a  man 
intending  to  execute  a  covenant  to  produce  title  deeds,  put  his 
hand  and  seal  to  a  deed  which  was  falsely  and  fraudulently 
read  over  to  him,  and  represented  as  being  a  covenant  to  pro- 
duce, when  in  fact  it  was  a  mortgage,  tlie  deed  was  hcM  void 
as  being  a  cheat  and  trick,*  So  also,  where  a  broker  fraudu- 
lently obtained  from  his  emj)loyer  the  cancellation  of  his  signa- 
ture to  a  transfer  of  shares  which  he  had  bought  for  him,  and 
by  means  of  the  cancelled  transfer  and  certificates  induced  the 
vendor  to  execute  a  fresh  transfer  to  himself,  and  thereuj)on 
got  the  shares  registered  in  his  own  name,  and  then  mortgaged 
them  to  the  defendant,  it  was  held  that  the  etiect  of  the  tirst 
transfer  was  not  destroyed  by  the  cancellation  fraudulently  ob- 

«  Vorley  f.  Cooke,  1  Giff.  231  ;  Of^il-  »  Vorlcy  v.  Cooke,  1  Ciff.  234  ;  Lee  v. 

vie  V.  Jeaffreson,  2  Giff.  353.     Sjee  fur-       Angus,  15  W.  li.  111), 
ther,  infra. 


*  A  person  wlio  has  ol)tuinc<l  an  absoliitc  deed  umliT  u  inoiniso  to  exe- 
cute a  tlefoasiinc-f,  may  i)e  coinpelled  to  pi  rform  liis  promise.  r«rk  r. 
IJaMwin,  1  Hoot,  -L't't. 

The  payee  of  a  note  wlio  has  l)ecn  in«lucctl  by  frau<l  to  destroy  it,  may 
have  relief  in  equity.     Hiehards  r.  Fridley  AVrijilit,  1(57. 

A  niortKaK*!  wliicli  has  Iteen  released  tliroiif^ii  fraud  may  t)C  rein8tnt<.*d. 
Toon;  c.  Price,  5  Leif,di,  52;  Trenton  Hanking  Co.  r.  WoodrutT,  1  Green. 
Ch.  117;   Uurnesr.  Carmark,  1  IJ.irl..  :!1»2;  Lynch  r.  Tihluts.  21  Unrh.  51. 

A  fraudulent  releiuie.  obtained  fr«)m  one  jjartner,  (h>es  not  txtinguish 
the  lien  of  the  other  partners.     Canal  Co.  f.  Gordon,  0  >Vall.  501. 


ruAiD.  51 

tained,  and  the  rcui.-t ration  was  sot  a^idc.'  So  ,m1ho,  in  a  case 
wliiTc  the  persons  named  as  ^^rantcji"  and  ^^rantce  in  :i  deed  liad 
no  mind  or  intention  that  any  estato  should  ]»ass  from  the  one 
to  the  other,  and  were  merely  dieated  into  the  execution  of 
deeds  without  a  kno\\led::;e  of  their  contentrf,  no  estate  was 
liehl  to  pass.'^ 

Similar  considerations  ap])ly  to  the  case  of  for^^-d  instru- 
ments. Xo  estate  can  ])ass  under  a  forced  instrument,'  but  in 
special  casis  an  innocent  ]>:irty  whose  title  to  ])roperty  is  de- 
rived under  a  forged  instrument  may,  as  against  the  party  on 
whom  the  forgery  has  been  practiced,  have  a  better  etjuity  to 
tlie  retention  of  the  property.* 

If  a  transaction  lias  been  ori^•inally  founded  on  fraud,  the 
original  vice  will  continue  to  taint  it,  however  long  the  nego- 
tiation may  continue,  or  into  whatever  ramifications  it  may  ex- 
tend." Not  only  is  the  person  wdio  has  committed  the  fraud 
precluded  from  deriving  any  brnetit  under  it,  but  an  innocent 
person  is  so  likewise,  unless  there  has  been  some  consideration 
moving  from  himself.® 

In  equity,  no  length  of  time  will  run  to  protect  or  screen 
fraud.'  "  Those,"  said  Lord  Cottenham  in  Trevelyan  v.  Char- 
ter,^ "  who  may  be  disposed  fraudulently  to  appropriate  to 
themselves  the  property  of  others,  may  be  assured  that  no  time 
will  secure  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  ])lunder;  but  that 
their  children's  children  will  be  compelled  by  this  court  to 


'Donaldson  v.  Gillott,  L.  R.  3   Eq.  Lord  El.lon  ;  Godilard  i'.  Carlisle,  9  IVi. 

277.  !'■>'.);    Daiibeney  r.  Cockburn,   1    Mer. 

'  Ogilvie  V.  Jeaffreson,  2  Oiff.  353.  64:i ;  Jiowen   v.   Evans,  2   II.   L.   259; 

»  Esdaile  v.  La  Nauzc,  1  Y.  &  C.  391;  Kusscll  v.  Jackson,  ID  lla.  212  ;  Schol- 

Boursot  r.  Savage,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  134.  field   v.   Tenipler,  Johns.   105;  4  D.  «k 

*  Jones  f.  Towles,  3M.  <tK.  581.    See  J.  429;  T()i>hani  ;•.  Duke  of  rortland, 

fuitlier,  itifm.  1  D.  J.  it  S.  5i",9,  /.-)•  Turner,  L.  J. 

^  Bridglnan   v.  Green,  -2   Ves.    62fi;  '  Cutterell  v.   I'ur.hase.  Forre.st,  61 ; 

Revnell  "c.   Sprye,  1   D.  M.  it   G.  HOO,  Irvine  v.  Kirkpatrick,  7  Ikdl's  Sc.  App. 

697;    JJowen   i'.' Evans.  2  H.  L.   281;  Ca.  1S6;  Allfrey  v.  Allfrey,  1  Mac.  «k 

Smith  1'.  Kay,  7  II.  L.  750,  775.  G.  99  ;  Bowen  v.  Evans,  2  II.  L.  257 ; 

'  Bridgman    f.    Green,   2   Ves.   626;  Walshani  !•.  Stainfon,  1  D.  J.  «t  S.  678. 

Ilugueuiu  I'.  Basley,  14  Ves.  280;  per  M  L.  J.  Cb.  N.  S.  214. 


52  ruAii). 

restore  it  to  those  tVotn  whom  it  has  hocii  tVauduleiitly  ah- 
stnu-teil."'  The  rii^dit  of  the  jtarty  (letVaiKU'd  to  have  the  trans- 
action set  aside,  is  not  atl'eeted  hy  hipse  of  time,  so  h)n«r  as  he 
remains  without  any  fault  of  his  ..wn  in  i;,Mioranco  of  the  fraud 
which  has  been  coinmittetl.'-  The  e<iiiity  is  imt  <•(  :itiiic(l  to  tlie 
party   defrauded,   hut  extends    to    heirs  at  hiw    in   respect  of 

frauds  committed  on  their  ancestor.' 

A  man  cannot  repudiate  a  transaction  as  far  as  it  is 
onerous  to  liimself,  and  adojtt  it  as  far  as  it  is  heneticial.  lie 
must  be  able  to  deal  with  the  whole  either  by  adoptiuij  or 
rejecting  it  in  tofo}*  There  may,  however,  be  cases  in  whidi 
the  same  transaction  may  be  good  as  to  part  and  for  certain 
purposes,  although  voidable  as  to  otlicr  i)arts  and  for  other 
])urposes.'  If  a  transaction  is  fair  as  between  the  parties  to 
it,  it  is  not  invalid  merely  because  it  may  have  been  concocted 
and  brought  about  by  a  third  party  with  a  fraudulent  intention 
of  benefiting  himself.  In  such  a  case,  so  far  as  regards  the 
third  i>arty,  the  whole  may  be  looked  upon  as  one  transaction 

'See   Allen  v.  firejory,  2  Eil. 'JSO;  'Bennett  v.  "W'atle,  1  l>itk.  R4  ;  Bel- 

WluiUev  f.  Whaliev.  i"McV.  4:j(J;  Chen-  lamy   v.   Sabine,  2  I'll,  -i:.!);   Hanson  v. 

nell  r.  Martin,  it  L!  J.  ell.  2USI.  KeaVuiE:,    1    lln.   1;   Grout  Luxemburg 

'  Blair  v.  Bromlev,  2  I'll.  3(Jl  ;  Ilolfe  Kailwav  Co.  v.  Ma^nay,  2:.  Beav.  694. 

V.  Gre'.rory,  ^4  L.  J."Cli.  275.  '  Bellamy  v.  Sabine,  2  I'h.  42.'),  437. 

•  Fulkner  i-.  O'Brien,  2  Ba.  &.  Bo.  221. 


♦  Farmers'  Bank  of  Va.  r.  Groves,  13  How.  51 :  Kinney  r.  Kieman,  2 
Lans.  492  ;  Voorhics  r.  Earl,  2  Hill,  288;  Jankins  r.  Simpson.  2  Sliep.  H64  ; 
Fay  r.  Oliver.  20  Vt.  118;  Jennintrs  r.  Uuzo.  1:5  111.  (UO;  Masson  r.  Bovet, 
1  Dcnio.  74  ;  Clarkson  r.  Mitcliell.  W  E.  1).  Smith.  2G1) ;  Ji-wett  r.  Petit,  4 
Mich.  50S;  Kimlmll  t.  Ciinuin^'ham,  4  Mass.  504 ;  Stevens  e.  Hyde,  83 
Barb.  171 ;  McGuire  v.  Callahan.  19  Ind.  128. 

The  proper  applicaticm  of  live  rule  in  ca.sc  of  a  sale  is  to  the  property 
Hold  when  that  consists  of  several  particulars :  The  contract  cannot  be 
reseinded,  as  to  a  part  of  the  jiroperty,  and  left  in  force  as  to  the  rest. 
But  if  the  vendor  has  been  induced  throuj^di  imposition  elTeeled  by  the 
ven<lee  to  accept  that  in  payment  which  proves  to  be  no  sueh  payment  as 
l>e  bad  the  right  to  e.xpeet,  he  is  periuiltcd  to  renounce  it,  and  ])rosecuto 
liis  claim  for  the  property  sold  as  if  no  sueh  payment  had  been  attempted. 
Loomis  c.  Wainwright,  21  Vt.  520;  Martin  v.  Roberts,  5  Cush.  130. 


:\iisi:i:ri:r,si:NTATi<»N'.  53 

ill  (trdi'i*  to  JikI^c  of  liis  inolivos,  and  to  ]m[  11  coiiBtruction 
upon  his  acts:  Imt,  as  rt'^Mnls  the  other  two,  wlio,  thou^li 
rtU'ectecl  by  one  i»urt  of  the  transucti(jn,  may  Ijc  total  stran^erw 
to  tlio  other  part,  it  is  not  only  not  neoesBary,  hut  it  would  he 
unjust  to  eonsider  every  j)art  of  tlie  transaction  alfectcil  hy 
objections,  which,  in  fact,  apply  only  to  particular  portions  of 
it.'  If,  for  instance,  a  man  brin^rs  about  an  arrangement 
between  father  and  son,  in  order  that  he  mi^ht  afterwards  deal 
with  the  son,  the  motive  mi<^lit  be  most  improper,  but  the 
arrani^enient  between  father  and  son  must  be  judged  of  uj)on 
its  own  merits.^  Nor  is  an  instrument  which  has  been  entered 
into  hetween  parties  for  a  i)urpose  which  may  be  considered 
fraudulent  as  against  a  third  party  necessarily  invalid  as 
between  themselves/ 


SECTION  II.— MISREPRESENTATION— CONCEALMENT. 

The  largest  class  of  cases  in  which  courts  of  justice  are 
called  upon  to  give  relief  against  fraud,  is  where  there  has 
been  a  misrepresentation,  or  auygestio  falsi}  If  a  man  rep- 
resents, as  true,  that  which  he  knows  to  be  false,  and  makes 
the  representation  in  such  a  way,  or  under  such  circumstances 
as  to  induce  a  reasonable  man  to  believe  that  it  is  true,  and  is 
meant  to  be  acted  on,  and  the  person  to  whom  the  representa- 
tion has  been  made,  believing  it  to  be  true,  acts  upon  the 
faith  of  it,  and  by  so  acting  sustains  damage,  there  is  fraud  to 
support  an  action  of  deceit  at  law,  and  to  be  a  ground  for  the 
rescission  of  the  transaction  in  equity.'  *     It  is  not,  however, 

'  lb.  438.  *  Broderick  v.  Broderick,  1    P.  Wms. 

»  lb.  240;  Jarvis  v.  Duke,  1  Vcrn.  20. 

*  Shaw  v,  Jeffery,  13  Moo.  P.  C.  432.  "Evans    v.    Biekncll,   6    Vea.    174; 


*  Where  a  party  misrepresents  a  material  fact  by  which  another  is 
misled  or  imposed  upon,  to  obtain  an  undue   advantage  of  him,  it  is 


54  Misrvi:i'ur.si;NTATiON. 

neccssnrv,  in  order  to  const ituto  frnud,  that  a  man  who  makes 
a  false  representation  should  know  it  to  ho  ialse.  It  is  enouj^h 
that  it  he  false,  if  it  he  made  recklessly  without  an  honest 
belief  in  its  truth,  or  without  reasonable  grounds  for  believing 
it  to  be  true,  and  be  made  di'liberatciy  and  in  such  a  way  as  to 
pive  the  ])crson  to  wliom  it  is  made  reasonable  ground  for 
supj>osing  that  it  was  meant  to  be  acted  on,  and  has  been  acted 
on  by  him  accordingly.*  If  a  man  makes  a  representation  as 
of  his  o^vn  knowletlge,  not  knowing  whether  it  be  true  or 
false,  and  it  is  in  lact  untrue,  he  is  guilty  of  fraud,  as  much  as 
if  he  knew  it  to  be  untrue.  It  is  in  law  a  willful  falsehood  for 
a  man  to  assert  as  of  his  own  knowledge  a  nuitter  of  which  ho 
has  no  knowledge.'*  It  is  a  wrong  to  state  as  true  what  the 
person  making  such  statement  does  not  know  to  be  true,  even 
though  he  does  not  know  it  to  be  false,  but  believes  without 


Edwnrdfl  •'  M'Cleay,  2  Sw.  2R7 ;  Adnm-  v.  Edmonds,   13  C.  B.  78fi;    Thorn  v. 

son  r.  Kvitt.  2  U.  A  M.  71;  Attwoo.l  v.  Biijlrtiid,   8  Exch.  72r.;   llutlon  v.  Roa- 

Smali    6  CI.   <t  Fin.  233;  Gerhard  i-.  sit  or.   7   D.   M.  &  O.  23;    Uawlins  v. 

Bates.'    2    E.    A    B.    475;    Jcnninfjs    r.  W"ickhnm,3  1).  it  J.  30J ;  .Swan  r.  North 

Brouirhton.  C  D.  M.  A  G.  12f.;  Rawlins  Britisli  Australian  ('<>..  2  II.  &.  V.  182. 

r    Wickham.   3  D.   A  J.  301;  Slim  i-.  !>eo  We.^torn  Hank  of  Scothuid  i-.  Addic, 

CroiicluT,  1  i).  F.  A  .1.  M8.  L.  H.  1  Sc.  \Y\y  Cix.  l.:2. 

•  J'ickard   v.   Sears,  t>   A.  <t   E.  4r,9;  »  Hazard   v.   Irwin,  IS  I'uk.  (Amer.) 

Taylor  v.  Ashwortli.  11  M.  ct  W.  413;  Ofi ;  Stuno  v.  Denny,  4  Mete  (Amer.) 

West  r.  Jones,  1  Sim.  N.  S.  20? ;  Evans  151. 


fraud.  Donclson  r.  Clements,  Mcij,'*',  155.  The  representation  must  have 
been  deliberately  made.  Representations  of  a  fii<,'itivc  sort  uttered 
casually  in  a  mi.xed  conversation  from  impulse  rather  than  reflection 
should  lie  cautiously  received  when  they  arc  to  be  made  the  basis  of 
liability.  It  is  tlie  delil>erate  will  and  intention  of  the  person  utterinjj 
the  words,  and  fuirly  to  be  inferred  therefrom,  and  not  tlicir  naked 
import  that  ouj,dit  to  make  him  liable.  The  person  making  the 
representations  should  >>c  api)ri.sed  by  the  jierson  to  whom  they  are 
made  of  the  purpose  for  whieh  they  are  required.  They  must  Ik-  made 
delilKrat<ly,  with  the  conHciousne.ss,  on  the  part  of  the  person  making 
thcni  that  they  will  Iw  conrKle*!  in  by  the  person  to  whom  they  arc  made. 
Casey  c.  AUcn,  1  A.  K,  Marsh.  405. 


mi«uki'Ui:si:ntati()n.  5.'> 

sufficient  grouruld  that  tlio  statement  will  iiltimately  turn  out 
to  be  correct.*  * 

An  intention  to  dcecivu  bcin^^  a  necessary  elenieut  or 
inL'redient  of  fraud,  a  false  representation  docs  not  amount  to 
a  fraud  at  law,  unless  it  be  iii.idc  with  a  fraiKlidcnt  intent. 
There  is  a  fraudulent  intent  if  a  man,  either  with  the  view  of 
benefitiiii^  himself,  or  misleading  another  into  a  course  of 
action  which  may  be  injurious  to  him,  makes  a  representation 
which  he  knows  to  be  false,  or  which  he  docs  not  believe  to  be 
true.'  The  legal  definition  of  fraud  does  not,  however,  include 
necessarily  any  degree  of  moral  tnii)itude.'  There  is  fraud  in 
law,  if  a  man  makes  a  representation  which  he  knows  to  be 
folsc,  or  does  not  honestly  believe  to  be  true,  with  the  view  to 
induce  another  to  act  on  the  faith,  who  does  so  accordingly, 
and  by  so  doing  sustains  damage,  although  he  may  have  had 
no  dishonest  purpose  in  making  the  representation.  If  a  man 
knowingly  aiul  willfully  makes  a  false  representation,  whereby 
another  is  misled  to  his  prejudice,  it  is  immaterial  that  there 
may  have  been  no  intention  on  his  part  to  l)enefit  himself,  or 
to  injure  the  person  to  whom  the  representation  was  made. 
If  a  man  says  what  is  folse  within  his  knowledge,  or  what  he 
has  no  reasonable  ground  for  believing  to  be  true,  and  makes 


>  1  Smout  !'.  Ilbery,  10  M.  <fe  W.  10.  "6  51.  <t  W.  377 ;  10  M.  &  W.  155, 

'Taylor  v.   Asliworth,  11  M.   <fe  W.      ;)cr  Lord  Abinger. 
413  ;  Evnns  v.  Eilmoiuls,  13  C.  B.  786  ; 
Thorn  V.  Bigland,  8  Excli.  725. 


*  Bennett  r.  Judson,  21  N.  Y.  238 ;  Harding  r.  Randall,  15  Me.  332 ; 
Stone  V.  Denny,  4  Met.  151 ;  Buford  r.  Caldwell,  3  Mo.  477. 

When  a  party  to  a  contract  places  a  known  trust  and  confidence  in 
the  other  party,  and  acts  upon  his  opinion,  any  misrepresentation  by  the 
party  so  trusted  in  a  material  matter,  constituting  an  inducement  or 
motive  to  the  act  of  the  other  party,  and  by  which  an  undue  advantage  is 
taken  of  bira,  is  regarded  as  a  fraud.  Laidlaw  r.  Organ,  2  Wheat.  178; 
Jouzin  V.  Toulmin,  9  Ala.  6G2  ;  Shaeffor  v.  Sleade,  7  Blackf.  178 ;  ilunt  v. 
Moore,  2  Barr.  105. 


50  MlSUi:i'Ri:SENTATll)N. 

t!ie  representation  witli  tlie  view  to  induce  juu)ther  to  act  upon 
it,  wlio  iloes  so  nc'coriliuirly  to  liis  prejiulice,  the  l:nv  iin])Uted 
t(t  liim  a  tVamlulrnt  intent,  altliouirh  lie  may  not  liavi-  Iteen  in 
taet  instijjatetl  l>v  a  ninrally  had  nintivr.  An  iiitrntinn  to 
deceive  i»r  a  iVaudnlent  intent  in  tlie  li'ii:al  acceptation  of  the 
tcnn,  depends  upon  the  knowledi^e  or  helief  respecting'  the 
falseliood  of  the  statement,  and  not  u])on  the  actual  dishonesty 
«)f  jturpose  in  niakinij  the  statement.*  *  Where,  for  instance, 
the  defendant  had  acce])ted  a  hill  of  exchange  in  the  name  of 
the  drawee,  ]mri>ortin^'  to  <1«»  so  hy  ])rocuration,  knbwinj;  that 
in  fact  he  had  no  such  authority,  hut  fully  helievin^'  that  the 
acceptance  would  be  sanctioned  and  the  bill  paid  by  the 
<lrawee,  and  the  drawee  repudiated  the  acceptance,  it  was  held, 
though  the  jury  negatived  a  fraudulent  intention  in  fact,  that 
the  vletendaut  had  committed  a  fraud  in  law  hy  making  a 
representation  which  he  knew  to  he  untr\ie.  and  whii-h  ho 
intended  others  to  act  upon.' 

The  presence  or  absence  of  a  corrupt  motive  or  dishonest 
purpose  distinguishes  moral  from  legal  fraud.  A  misrepresen- 
tation made  without  a  corrupt  motive  or  dishonest  purpose  is 
ealled  legal  fraud.  If  there  be  present  a  corrupt  motive  or 
dishonest  purpose  in  making  a  misrepresentation,  there  is 
moral  fraud.' 

In  Wilde  v.  Gibson,*  a  fraudulent  intention  was  not  im- 
puted to  a  man  by  reason  merely  of  his  having  constructive 
notice  that  a  representation  made  by  him  was  untrue,  when  ho 

•  FortiT  V.  Charles.  7  Bini;.  107  ;  Pol-  »  Mocna  r.  Ilovwortli.   10  M.  A  W. 

hill  V.  WnlNr,  '.i  H.  A  Atl.  Ill;  Murray  r.l7,  /xr  Lord  ^VcMlslt•ydulc ;  Wilde  ». 
r.  Miinn,  '2  Kxdi.  r.ll.  jxr  Lord  W'vu'a-  fJihson,  1  IL  L.  C'.Wi,  per  Lord  Cami> 
lovdal.-:  Willi.'  r.  (Jibhon,  1  H.  L.  f,;i:t,       hill. 

•  1  II.  L.  r.or). 
A  Ad.  114. 


II-,  <jai<    ,      " w.^.., 

Iter  I>or<l  Cmiiiihill. 

»  TolhiU  t-.  Wultir,  3  IJ. 


♦  Paffc  r.  Bent,  2  Met.  371  ;  Collins  r.   Dtnni«i)ii,  Vi  Met.  r)40;  Elliott 
c.  Boiiz.  9  AIu.  772. 


MISUKI'UKSKNTATION.  57 

liad  IK)  atliial  knowledgo  that  it  was  untrue.  Hut  tlio  judg- 
lueiit  in  tills  case  ha.s  been  expressly  disaj»j)r()ved  of  by  Lord 
St.  Leonards,'  *  and  cannot,  though  it  was  the  decision  (jf 
the  liighest  tribunal,  be  considered  as  founded  on  sound  prin- 
ciples. 

If  a  man  makes  a  representation  in  tlie  honest  belief  tliat 
it  is  true,  and  tiieru  be  reasonable  ground  for  such  belief,  a 
fraudulent  intent  will  not  be  imputed  to  him,  although  it  may 
turn  out  to  l)e  false,''  unless  there  be  a  duty  cast  on  him  to 
know  the  truth. ^  A  misrepresentation  made  through  honest 
mistake  is  not  a  ground  for  rescinding  a  transaction  at  law,* 
unless  the  subject-matter  be  dift'erent  in  substance  from  what 
it  was  rei>rcsented  to  be.  In  cases  where  a  contract  is  sought 
to  be  rescinded  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  it  is  enough  to  show 
a  fraudulent  representation  as  to  any  part  of  that  which 
induced  the  party  to  enter  into  the  contract  which  he  seeks 
to  rescind  ;  but  where  there  has  been  an  innocent  misrepresen- 
tation or  misapprehension,  it  does  not  authorize  a  rescission, 
unless  it  be  such  as  to  show  that  there  is  a  complete  difference 
between  what  was  represented  and  what  was  taken,  so  as  to 
constitute  a  failure  of  consideration.  For  example,  where  a 
horse  is  bought  under  a  belief  that  it  is  sound,  if  the  purchaser 
was  induced  by  a  fraudulent  representation  as  to  the  horse's 
soundness,  the  contract  may  be  rescinded.  If  it  was  induced 
by  an  honest  misrepresentation  as  to  its  soundness,  though  it 
may  be  clear  that  both  vendor  and  purchaser  thought  they 

'  Snsf.  L.  Prop.  6G0.  '  Thorn  v.  Bitjland,  ib.,  infra: 

"  llaycraft  i'.  Creasy,  2  East,  92 ;  Col-  *  Ormrod  v.  lluth,  1-t  M."*fc  W.  651. 

Una  I'.   Evans,   5  Q.  B.  820;  Thom  v. 

Bigland,  8  Excli.  726. 


♦  A  person  who  represents  an  article  to  be  good  as  far  ai^  lie  knows, 
and  yet  conceals  facts  that  would  tend  materially  to  diminish  its  value 
in  the  estimation  of  the  purchaser,  is  guilty  of  allirmative  mL-representa- 
tion.     Wheelock  r.  Wheeler,  34  Vt.  5:33. 


as  MISKKPUKSKNTATKJN. 

wore  ilcalinix  ahout  a  H)uml  horse,  ami  were  in  error,  yet  the 
purehaser  must  pay  the  whole  price,  unless  there  was  a 
warranty  ;  and  even  if  there  was  a  warranty,  he  eannot  return 
the  horse  an<l  claim  hack  the  whoU'  of"  the  jirii-e,  unless  there 
was  a  condition  to  that  etlccf  in  the  contract.  The  principle 
is  well  ilhistrated  hy  the  civil  law  as  stated  in  the  Diujest.* 
There,  after  laying  down  the  general  rule  that  where  the 
parties  are  not  at  one  as  to  the  euhject  of  the  contract  there  is 
no  a<:reeiiient,  ami  that  tliis  aj>j)lies  where  the  jiarties  have 
misapprehended  each  other  as  to  the  cot'j)U8,  as  where  an 
ahsent  slave  was  sold,  and  the  buyer  thoufjht  he  was  huyinij 
Pamphilus,  and  the  vendor  thought  he  was  selling  Stichus  ; 
and  pronouncing  the  judgment  that  in  such  a  case  there  was 
no  bargain  because  there  was  ( rror  in  corjxyir,  tlii'  franiers  of 
the  Digest  meet  the  point  thus :  "  Lule  quceritur  si  in  ipso 
corpore  non  erretur  sed  in  suhstantia  error  sit  id  pitta  si 
a<^etu77i  pro  vino  veneat^  aes  pro  miro,  vel  (jiiid  aliud  arfjetito 
simile  ;  an  emptio  et  venditio  sit  j  "  and  the  answers  given  by 
the  great  jurists  quoted  are  to  the  effect  that  if  there  be  a 
misapprehension  as  to  the  substance  of  the  thing,  there  is  no 
contract ;  but  if  it  be  only  a  diftercnce  in  some  quality  or 
accident,  even  though  the  misapprehension  may  have  been  the 
actuating  motive  to  the  purchaser,  yet  the  contract  remains 
binding.  Paulus  says,  "  *i  aes  pro  auro  vcneat^  non  valctj 
aliter  at^iue  si  auruin  qiiidem,  fuerit^  deter ius  autem  quam 
emptor  est i in nret ;  tunc  enim  emptio  valets  ^ 

The  ])rinciple  of  our  law  is  the  same  as  that  (»f  the  civil 
law.  If  th(!  thing  sold  (iillrrs  in  substance  from  what  the  pm-- 
chaser  was  led  by  the  vendor  to  believe  he  was  buying,  there 
is  no  contract.  In  C}omj)ertz  v.  Jiartlett,'  and  Gurney  v. 
AVomersley,*  a  man  who  honestly  sold  what  he  thought  wau  a 

'  Lib.    Ift.    /)<•  cnntrahenda  emptione,  *  2  V..  «t  B.  819. 

Tit.  1.  !<•-.  9.  1(1,  11.  'l  i:.  it  li.  133. 

'  K)  niic'dy  t*.   I'ttiiaina,  dc.  Co.,  L.  U. 

'1  Q.  IJ.  r)t>7. 


MiRni;iM;EsrATATioN.  no 

1)111  witluMif    recourse    to  liiin,  was   held    iirvcrtliclcs,  lioiunl   fo 
ivtiirii  the  i)riL'0,  on  it.s  turning  out  that  tlie  huppoHcd  bill  wjuj 
\i)'u\  under  the  8tain[)  laws  in   the  one  case,  and  was  a  forgery 
in  the  (tther.*     So  also  where  cotton  was   sold  by  sani])le,  and 
the  eainjtle  was   Ion-:;  stapled  coffon,  but    the  coftou  ddiso-rd 
was  short  stapled  cotton,  the  cotton  Mas   jicid  to  be  dill'erent  in 
kind  from  what  the  purchaser  had  contracted  to  buy,  and  that 
Lo  was  entitled  to  reject  it.^     If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  pur- 
cliascr  receives  what  answers  tlic   description  of  the  article 
Bold,  and  there  is  no  difference  in  substance  between  the  article 
delivered  and  the  article  sold,  but  oidy  a  difference  in  some 
quality  or  accident,  the  contract  remains  binding  in  the  absence 
of  a  warranty,  even  though  a  misapprehension  caused  by  the 
incorrect  representation   of  tlie  vendor  may  have   been   the 
actuating  motive  to  the  purchaser.^     In  such  a  case  the  rule 
caveat  emjytor  will  apply.*     In  a  case,  accordingly,  where  a 
steam-packet  company  issued  a  pros])ectus  stating  in  effect  thal^ 
they  had  entered  into  a  contract  with  a  colonial  government 
for  the  carrying  of  mails  between  certain  places,  and  a  man 
induced  by  the  terms  of  the  prospectus  applied  for  and  ob- 
tained some  of  the  shares,  but  the  contract,  not  being  binding 
on  the  colonial  government,  was  repudiated,  it  was  held  that 
the  representation  did  not  aficct  the  substance  of  the  matter, 
the  applicant  having  actually  got  shares  in  the  very  companv,* 
for  sliares  in  wliich  he  had  applied,  and  the  shares  beino-  a 
property  of  considerable  value  in  the  market,  though  perhaps 
not  so  valuable  as  they  Avould  have  been  had  the  statement  in 
the  prospectus  been  strictly  accurate.'     The  difhculty  in  everv 
case  is  to  determine  whether  the  mistake  or  misapprehensiou/ 

'  See  Flight  v.  Booth,  1  Bin-  N.  C.  *  lb.     1  E.  A-  B.  850,  ptr  LordCamp- 

877.  bell. 

*  Azcmar  v.  Casclla,   L.  R.  2  C.  P.  '  Kennedy  v.  Paonraa,  ifcc.  Co.,  L.  E. 

677.  2  Q.  B.  oso'. 

'  Kennedy  v.  Panama,  «tc.  (Jo.,  L.  R. 
2  Q.  B.  687. 


r»0  MlSlirPRrSKNTATIOX, 

is  as  to  the  substance  vl'  llu'  wlmle  consideration,  poinfr,  as  it 
were,  to  the  root  of  tlie  matter,  or  only  as  t<t  si>nie  point,  oven 
tboujjli  a  material  ])(tint,  an  error  as  to  which  does  not  atlect 
the  suhstani'c  of  the  whole  consideration.  There  may  bo  mis- 
ai>i>ri'hension  as  to  that  which  is  a  luatcrial  jtart  of  tlu-  motive 
indncinix  the  tninsaction,  hut  not  so  as  to  prcvi'iit  the  i-ubject- 
niatter  of  the  transaction  from  liein<^  in  substance  what  it  was 
represented  to  be.* 

The  same  ]irinciples  aj)i)ly  in  e(juity.  A  man  who  makes 
a  representation  wiiieh  he  honestly  and  upon  reasonable 
{▼rounds  believes  to  be  tnie,  or  believes  himself  entitled  to 
assert,  is  not,  indej)en(lently  of  a  duty  cast  on  him  to  know 
the  truth,  bound  in  equity,  if  the  representation  turns  out  to 
be  untrue,  to  make  ^'ood  what  be  has  so  represented.'  "  There 
is  no  case  in  ecpiity,"  said  Lord  Thurlow,  in  Merewether  v. 
Shaw,' "where  a  man  makinir  an  honest  representation  when 
cidled  upon  t(»  Lcive  an  account  of  the  circumstances  of  another, 
has  been  held  liable  in  this  respect  to  make  good  what  be  has 
80  represented."  From  certain  dicta  to  be  found  in  the  re- 
ports, it  may  appear  doubtful  wliether  the  same  jtrincijdes 
apply  in  ec^uity  where  a  claim  is  made  for  the  restitution  of 
property  acpiired  through  incorrect  rei)resentations  made  by 
honest  mistake.  In  liawlins  r.  AVickham,*  Turner,  L.  J.,  said 
that  if,  upon  a  treaty  for  ]nirchase,  one  of  the  j>arties  to  the 
contract  makes  a  representation  materially  atlect inir  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  the  contract,  he  cannot  be  allowed  to  retain  any 
benefit  which  he  has  derived,  if  the  re])resentation  proves  to 
be  untrue,  and  that  no  man  can  be  held  U)  what  he  has  done 
under  circumstances  which  have  been  i'noneou.->ly  represented 
to  him  by  the  other  party   tu  the  transaction,  however  inno- 


'  Kennedy  v.  Vaaaiiin,  ikc.  (,'.<>,  L.  h.       Aiii^li'-  »•.  Mcillyiott,  '.<  V«h.  *J1  ;   Evnns 
Q.  l;.  CHH.  I.  Wvnit,  :J1  Hi'nv.  '217. 

»  McTfw  other  I'.   Show.   2  (ox.  l:!J  .  » '/Cx.  i:t4.  *  3  I>.  4  .1.  317. 


Misur,i'!:i:si:NTATi()N.  Gl 

rcntly  the  represcntaliun  iM:iy  have  hceii  iiiadc!;  tliat  <i  contra n' 
tloctrine  wuiiKI  striko  at  the  root  of  fair  dealin;;,  and  would 
open  a  door  of  escape  in  all  cases  of  representation  as  to  credit, 
and  indeed  in  all  other  cases  of  false  re])resentatiun.  Tlic  / 
words  of  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  Daniel  r.  Min  licli,' are  imicli 
to  the  same  effect.  "  Nothinfj,"  he  said,  "  is  clearer  in  equity 
than  the  doctrine  that  a  bargain  founded  u])on  false  representa- 
tions made  by  the  seller,  althou<;]i  made  by  innocent  mistake, 
will  be  avoided.  Mistake  as  well  as  fraud  in  any  rej)resenta- 
tion  of  a  fact  material  to  tlie  contract  is  a  sutiicicnt  ground  to 
set  it  aside."  ^*  There  is,  however,  good  reason  to  doubt  / 
whether  on  princij)le  or  authority,  tlie  equitable  rule  with 
respect  to  the  restitution  of  property  acf^uired  through  false 
representations  can  be  carried  so  far  as  the  words  of  these 
learned  judges  would  warrant.  In  Eawlins  y.  Wickham,  there 
was,  in  fact,  a  duty  cast  upon  the  party  making  the  representa- 
tion to  know  tlie  truth,  so  that  it  is  probable  that  the  words  of 
Turner,  L.  J.,  though  general  in  terms,  should  be  taken  with 

'  1  Storj-  (Amer.),  172.  (Amer.),  001 ;  Dogjett  r.  Emerson,  lb. 

^  Ilougli    V.    Kiclmrilson,     3     Story       733. 


*  The  gist  of  the  inquiry  is  not  whether  the  party  making  the  statement 
knew  it  to  be  false,  but  whether  the  statement  made  as  true  was  believed 
to  be  true,  and,  therefore,  if  false,  deceived  the  party  to  whom  it  was 
made.  Joyce  v.  Taylor,  6  G.  k,  J.  54 ;  Lewis  r.  McLcmon.  10  Yerg.  206 ; 
Donclson  r.  Clements,  ^Mci.u's  I").");  Bailey  v.  Jordan,  32  Ala.  oO  ;  O.-^woUl  e. 
McGchec,  28  Miss.  340;  :SIitchcll  v.  Zimmerman,  4  Tex.  75;  Belknap  v. 
Sealey,  2  Duer,  570;  Smith  r.  Mitchell,  6  Geo.  458;  Lockbridge  r.  Foster 
c«a/.,4  Scam.  5G9;  Davidson  r.  Moss,  5  How.  (Miss)  673;  Shackcltbid  .. 
Ilandley,  1  A.  K.  Marsh,  495 ;  McFerran  r.  Taylor,  3  Cranch,  270 ;  Hazard 
r.  Irwin,  18  Pick.  95;  Bacon  r.  Johnson,  7  Johns.  Ch.  194;  Henderson  c. 
Railroad  Co.,  17  Tex.  560 ;  Roosevelt  v.  Fulton,  2  Cow.  129;  Smith  r. 
Richards,  13  Pet.  20.  An  innocent  misrepresentation  by  mistake  will  only 
vitiate  a  contract  when  the  error  between  the  parties  is  of  such  a  nature 
and  character  as  to  destroy  the  consent  necessary  to  its  validity;  and  the 
rule  is  further  qualified,  so  that  it  does  not  embrace  cases  to  ^hich  the  rule 
caveat  emptor  applies.     Brooks  r.  Hamilton,  15  Minn.  26. 


(i-  Misi:i:ri:i:si:.NTATi()N. 

reference  to  tlic  pnrtieular  {'ircuinstanees  of  the  case.  The 
nile  at  law  heinj;  reasonaMe  and  fully  a(le(iuate  for  the  ])uri)(>se.s 
of  justice,  there  is  \u>  reaxdi  fitr  extentliiiir  the  rule  in  etjuity, 
8o  far  as  the  words  of  'rurnci-,  L.  .1.,  wouiil,  if  taken  ^'enerally, 
warrant.  TIuto  is  no  irrouml  fi)r  conti-ndinij  that  the  rule 
caveat  emptor  does  not  iippl.v  in  etjuity  as  well  as  at  law,*  or 
that  a  representation  amounts  any  more  in  c(|uity  to  a  warranty 
than  it  does  at  law.  The  sound  doctrine  would  seem  to  he 
that  the  rule  in  e.iuity  is  tlie  same  as  the  rule  at  law.  an<l  that 
if,  acct>rdinj;ly,  a  representation  he  lionestly  and  u]>nu  fair  and 
reasonahle  grounds  helievcd  to  he  true  hy  the  pai1y  making  it, 
and  there  he  no  duty  east  on  him  to  know  the  truth,  no  claim 
for  the  restitution  of  ])roperty  acfjuired  through  the  rei)resenta- 
tion  can  he  maintaintd  in  efjuity,  although  the  i-i'i»resentation 
proves  to  he  untrue,'-  unless  the  suhject-matter  he  so  different 
in  sid)stance  from  what  it  was  represented  to  he,  as  to  amount 
to  a  failure  of  consideration.' 

There  is  a  difference  in  suhstance  amounting  to  a  failure  of 
consideration,  if  the  jiroperty  is  n<»t  of  the  same  nature  or 
description  as  it  wa>  represented  to  he  in  the  ])articulars  of 
sale,*  as  where  leasehold  or  coj)yhold  property  is  descrihed  as 
freehold;'  or,  perha])s,  where  an  nnder  lease  is  sold  as  an 
original  lease;'  or  as  where  upon  the  sale  of  an  estate  let  at 
lease  on  a  rack-rent,  such  rent  is  descrihed  as  a  ground-rent;" 
or  where  there  is  a  misdescription  of  the  quantity  of  land  in 
rcLMrd  to  acres  heing  statute  acres  or  customary  acres;'  or  as 

'  (Jorsucli  v.  Crie.  29  L.  J.  C.  P.  300.  »  Dnw.'  v.  Corp.  0  Ves.   n«8;    Pnls- 

'  See  L«t,iro   r.  Crokcr,  1   Bo.  A-   IJo.  ford  >•.  Uicliard.s,  17  Bcav.  Ort,  per  Lord 

r.M;  linrtKu  v.  Salmon,  C  I).  .M.  &.  ('..  Uoiiiillv. 

'M.  •  .Mad.l.'y  v.  Booth,  2  Dop.  A  S.  718  , 

•  .'<co  Unwhind  r.  Norris,  1  Cox.  :>'.•;  Henderson  v.  Hudson.  l.'>  W.  U.  hco. 
LfMic  r.  Thomjiwn,  y  Hii.  iJt'.S;  Burt-  Siv  I>arlinj,'t(m  r.  Himiillon,  Ivay.  iiftO. 
lelt  r.  Sninion,  f.  \).  .M.  iV  C.  11.  '  .^(.-wart  v.  .Mliston.  1  M.-r.  'H\.    Soc 

*  See  Tnylor   v.   .Martind.ili-.   1    V.  it  Bnrti.tl  v.  .Sdinon,  f,  1>.  .M.  A  O.  3a. 
C.  C.  C.  C.'.N  ;  .Mndel«'y  > .  B<»»tli,  '1  Dejj.  '  I'rioe  r.  .Nortli.  '1  Y.  it  C.  f.2t5 ;  Karl 
it  S.  7'22;   .'^tnnton  v.  Tattcrsjdl,    1   Sin.  of  IlurliMiu  i'.  Loijanl,  31  B<av.  612. 

di  C,.  WM;  I'rioe  f.   .Motauloy,  2  D.  M. 
A  G.  340. 


MISRKntESENTATION'.  C"* 

where  a  lionse  compoHod  extonially  ]):irtly  of  l)riclc,  and  partly 
of  timber,  ami  lath  and  jilastcr,  is  (h-x-rihcd  as  a  l)rick-])uill 
house.* 

So,  also,  there  is  a  diirci-cncc,  in  suhstancu  amount iii;^  to  a 
failure  of  consideration,  if  tluTc  Ih-  niisrei)resentati<»n  uj.i,ii 
a  ]>oint  material  to  the  (hu'  enjoyment  of  the  jtroperty;  as 
where  a  vendor  describes  hind  as  situated  within  one  mile  of 
a  particular  town,  when  it  is,  in  fact,  several  miles  distant 
therefrom;^  or  where,  upon  the  sale  of  a  lease  of  a  house  or 
shop,  the  particulars  merely  stated  that  the  lease  contained  a 
restriction  against  certain  sjiecified  trades  being  carried  on 
upon  the  premises,  whereas,  in  fact,  several  other  trades  were 
forbidden;^  or  where,  upon  the  sale  of  a  piece  of  land  de- 
scribed as  "a  first-rate  building  plot  of  ground,"  no  notice 
was  taken  of  a  right  of  way  passing  over  it,*  or  of  an  under- 
ground watercourse  mIucIi  third  pai-ties  had  liberty  to  open, 
cleanse,  and  repair,  making  satisfaction  for  damage  tlierebv 
occasioned;'  or  as  where  a  house  described  to  be  situated 
in  a  fashionable  street,  was  not  actually  in  that  street,  but 
merely  communicated  Asith  it  l)y  a  passage.' 

So,  also,  there  is  a  difference  in  sul)Stance  amounting  to  a 
failure  of  consideration,  where  the  property,  as  described,  is 
not  identical  with  that  intended  to  be  sold;'  or  where  a  mate- 
rial part  of  the  property  described  has  no  existence,  or  cannot 
be  found;'  or  where  no  title  can  be  shown  to  it,  as  where 
upon  the  sale  of  a  leasehold  house  and  small  yard  adjoining, 
the  yard  was  not  included  in  the  lease,  but  was  held  from  year 

'  Powell  r.  Doubble,  Sug.  V.  &  ?.  29  Sec  Gibson  v.  D'Este,  2  T.  <t  C.  C.  C. 

Dart,  V.  <fc  P.  90.  642. 

'  Duke  ulNorlolk  v.  Wnrtliy,  1  Camp.  *  Sbacklcton  v.  Sutcliffe,  1  Deg.  &  i>. 

o'M;  I'ulst'oicl  ('.  Richards,  ITBeav.  96.  609. 

per  Loril  Iloinillv.  "  Stanton  v.  Taftersall,   1  Sm.  <t  G. 

'  Fli-ht  I'.  Kuotli,  1  Bing.  N.  C.  370.  529;     comp,   White   i-.    BrnJ.-liaw,    10 

See  A'igiioiles  v.  Brown,  12  Ir.  Eq.  194,  Jur.  T3S.     See  I>art,  V.  <t  1".  ss,  89. 

19tt.  '  Leach  v.  Miillctt,  3  V.  ,k  P.  11.5. 

*  Dykes  v.  Bloke,  4  Biug.  N.  C,  463.  "  Robinson  v.  Musirrove.  2  Moo.  <k  1^ 

93. 


G4  Misui.riu:si:NTATi«  )N. 

to  year  at  a  separate  rent;'  or  whore  land  was  ilescribt'd  in 
the  i»artlculars  of  sak^  as  held  under  a  lease  that  would  expire 
on  a  certain  day,  hut  it  turiu'd  out  that  the  tenant  of  i)art  of 
the  land  was  entitled  under  an  e<iuitahli'  article  \o  a  reversion- 
arv  term  for  four  lives;'  or  wlu-re  an  annuity  was  pninted,  to 
be  calcidated  on  a  certain  footinir  by  the  a.<,'ent  of  the  ^^^rantee, 
and  the  calculation  proved  very  inaccurate  ; '  or  where  a  niau 
ai;reed  to  ])urchasc  a  share  in  a  ]Kirtnershii>  businesss,  on  the 
footiuir  of  a  balance-sheet  prepared  by  an  accnuiitMnt  employed 
bv  the  vendor,  which  turned  ont  t(t  be  very  iiiaccui-ate  in  certain 
particulars;*  or  where  there  was  a  material  variance  between 
the  prospectus  of  a  company,  on  the  basis  of  which  a  man 
took  shares  in  the  concern,  and  the  memorandum  of  association 
bv  which,  it  was  governed;'  or  where  a  man  was  released 
from  an  obliiraticuj,  in  which  he  was  bound,  on  a  representa- 
tion that  a  certain  security  deposited  with  the  creditor  (which 
proved  to  be  an  imaginary  one)  was  a  good  security." 

So,  also,  it  may  be  laid  down,  as  a  general  rule,  that  there 
is  a  ditlerencc  in  substance  amounting  to  a  failure  of  consider- 
ation, if  the  misrepresentation  or  misdescription  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  the  amount  of  compensation  cannot  be  estinuited;' 
as  where  on  the  sale  of  a  reversion  expectant  on  the  decease  of 
A  in  case  he  should  have  no  children,  his  age  was  described 
as  sixty-six,  instead  of  sixty-four;^  or  as  where  on  the  sale  of 
a  wood,  the  particulars  erroneously  stated  that  the  average  size 
of  the   timber  api>roached  fifty  feet,  the  nnm])or  of  trees  not 

0 

•  DobcH  f.  Hutchinson,  :<  A.  «k  A.  '  Sl.ip's  ('asc.  2  D.  .!.  .t  S.  .VU; 
ar.5  Sec  Kniit<lil.iill  i-.  (Irut-ber,  1  Stowiirfs  Cum;  L.  U.  1  Cli.  A|>p.  n86 ; 
Miuid.  \:>:i;  MCullotk  v.  Gn-^ory,  1  K.  l,u\vri-nn''.s  C'ns.'.  2.  iV..  4'J5  ;  Hallows  v. 
J,  J    2H(\  I'Vriiic.  L.  U.  ;J  Kn.  !>'M. 

'Linciinn   v.  O.ttcr,  7  Ir.    Eq.   177.  '  Sdiolfic-ld    v.    IVnipU-r.    t    1».    A   .1 

See  CoUitT '•.  Jt-nkiin,  Yoii.  2'J8;  Su;j.  4".». 

y   ^  |.   no-l,  '  ^ec   Mmlt'loy  v.  l!(x.lli,  2  Do;;,  .t  S 

'  Carpmtt"!  r.  Towis,  10  IJenv.  44.  722. 

*  tlnrlc» worth  v.  JciininirH.  34  lioav.  '  Shi-rxvorxl  »-.  Rol.b.n*.  Mu.>.  <L  .M 
9(5  194.     tM'O  8  Cl.  ±  F.  7V2. 


MISRErRKS'ENTATION.  (m 

being  stated  ;*  or  as  where  the  particidars  stated  the  premises  to 
ho  in  the  joint  occupation  of  A  &  V>  as  lessees,  when  in  fact 
A  was  only  assignee  of  tlie  lease,  and  J>  was  a  mere  joint 
occupier ;  ^  or  as  where  the  right  to  coal  under  the  estate  was 
shnwii  til  I)c  ill  other  parties,  and  no  means  existed  of  deter- 
mining its  vahie.^ 

Tiie  presence  of  the  words  "more  or  less"  in  a  contract 
for  the  sale  of  a  deed  of  conveyance  of  land  after  a  statement 
of  the  quantity  of  acres  comprised  therein  does  not  imj)ort  a 
special  engagement  that  tlic  purchaser  takes  the  risk  of  the 
quantity.  The  words  must  he  taken  merely  to  cover  a  reason- 
able excess  or  deficiency.  If  it  turn  out  that  the  quantity  falls 
considerably  short  of  what  it  was  represented  to  be,  the  court 
will  relieve  the  purchaser  from  payment  for  tlie  deficiency; 
but  a  slight  variation  does  not  afford  a  ground  for  relief.*- 

'  Lord    Brooke   v.    Ilouiulthwaite,    5  v.  Winclicster,  1  V.   tt  B.  375  ;    Port- 

Ila.  1><.)8.  man  v.  Mill,  2  Ilii.«s.  ',10,  Su;^.  V.  i  1'. 

*  Kid£:way  >•.  Gray,  1  Mac.  <fe  G.  109.  321.     See  Cliarlesworth  )•.  Jenninn:8, 34 
See  (Jrisscll  v.  Peto,  2  Sin.  <fe  G.  30.  Beav.  9t5 ;    Davis  v.  Shepherd,  L.  li.  1 

'  Sniithson  >'.  Pouell.  20  L.  T.  105.  Cb,  App.  410. 

*  lliU  V.  Bulkley,  17  Ves.  398  ;  Wiuch 


*  Pollock  r.  Wilson,  3  Dana,  25  ;  Quesnel  r.  Woodlief,  2  Hen.  <k  Munf. 
173;  S.  C.  6  Call.  218;  Kcad  v.  Cramer,  1  Green,  Cli.  277;  Belknap  r. 
Sealey,  14  N.  Y.  143  ;  Smith  r.  Fly,  24  Tex.  345  ;  Harrell  v.  Hill,  10  Ark. 
102  ;  Harrisou  v.  Talbot,  2  Dana,  258;  Bailey  v.  Snyder,  13  S.  &  R.  1«0  ; 
Thomas  v.  Perry,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  49 ;  Noble  v.  Googins,  99  ^lass.  231 ;  Tarbcll 
r.  Bowman,  103  Mass.  341. 

Where  land  is  sold  in  gross,  for  a  sum  certain,  upon  a  statement  of  the 
number  of  acres,  quantity  must  be  regarded  as  a  material  consideration 
with  the  vendee.     Marbury  v.  Stonestreet,  1  3Id,  147. 

The  use  of  the  words  "  more  or  less,"  does  not  preclude  an  inquiry 
into  a  fraud  that  may  have  been  committed  by  either  party  to  a  contract. 
M'Coun  r.  Ddaney,  3  Bibh.  4(3 ;  IlarrcU  c.  Hill,  I'J  Ark.  102. 

The  words  "  more  or  less,"  import  that  quantity  did  not  enter  into  the 
essence  of  the  contract,  and,  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  neither  party  can 
claim  relief  cither  for  a  deficiency  or  a  surplus.  Tyson  v.  Hardcsty  29  Md. 
305  ;  Slotbower  v.  Gordon,  23  Md.  1 ;  Hall  v.  Mayhew,  15  Md.  551 ;  Hart  r. 
StuU,  3  Md.  Ch.  26  ;  8.  C.  9  Gill.  451;  McCrea  r.  Leonstreth,  17  Pcnu. 
316  ;    Marvin  r.  Bennett,  8  Pi'^ge,  312  ;    S.  C.  26  Wend.  169  ;    Young  o. 


66  MlSKErUDSE^TATloN. 

Nor  will  tlio  court  intorfort',  altliou^li  the  dcticiency  bo  con- 
pideraltli*,  if  tlu'  risk  as  to  the  <]uantity  constituted  one  of  tlio 
cleiiuMits  of  the  ni^reenieiit,  or  if  the  sale  was  of  a  thini^  in 

(."niiix.  "J  Hilih.  '.'T'J  ;  W  r:iV(T  r.  Cartrr,  10  L-'iLrli,  :tT  ;  ('Iciivclatul  r.  Kogers, 
1  A.  K.  Marsh,  19:!;  Williford  r.  Galbraith.  G  Watts,  117;  IVrkins  r. 
"NVcbsIrr,  2  N.  II.  -ST ;  Wicker  r,  Crcas,  1  Iri-il.  Ki].  351 ;  Podi-us  r.  Owens, 
Rice's  Eq.  55;  Ketchuin  r.  Sloat,  20  Ohio,  453;  Chipman  r.  Brijrgs,  8  Cul. 
70  ;  Powell  r.  Clark,  5  Mass.  355. 

The  worils  "  more  or  less,"  or  other  e(iuivaleiit  words,  should  lie  con- 
strued to  (lualify  representations  of  quantity  in  such  a  manner  that,  if 
made  in  jjood  faith,  neither  ])arty  should  be  entitled  to  any  relief  on 
account  of  deficiency  or  surplus.  Stcbbins  v.  Eddy,  4  Mason,  414  ;  Jonca 
c.  Plater,  2  Gill.  128. 

A  parol  contract  of  sale,  at  a  certain  price  per  acre,  is  so  far  varied  and 
modified  by  a  subsequent  accejjtance  of  a  deed  with  the  words  "  more  or 
less,"  that  the  number  of  acres  does  not  fonn  the  iiasis  of  the  ultimate 
conveyance,  but  the  land  is  purchaseil  \i\wn  an  assumed  estimate,  and  at  a 
gross  sum.     Smitli  v.  Evans,  6  Binn.  182;  Stcbbins  v.  Eddy,  4  Mason,  414. 

Far  too  much  sij^iificancc  has  been  sometimes  allowed  to  the.se  and 
similar  words.  Their  primary  use  is  to  show  that  all  the  land  embraced 
within  the  dcscrijjtion,  is  intended  to  pass,  and  in  that  sense  they 
are  often  important  in  the  construction  of  an  instrument.  They  may  be 
decisive  upon  the  question  of  how  much  consideration  is  to  be  paid,  or  of 
mere  compensation  where  actual  mistake  does  not  appear.  And  where 
misrepresentation  ami  mistake  are  claimed,  they  certainly  <ju:ilify  the  state- 
ment of  quantity,  which  the  instrument  otlierwise  imp)rts.  A  deed  which 
describes  the  land,  and  states  the  number  of  acres,  altiiou'rh  with  the 
words  "  more  or  less,"  clearly  imports  t!iat  there  is  not  a  j,'^;!!  tleficicncy 
or  excess.  If  the  deficiency  is  one  half,  the  instrument  carries,  on  its  face, 
a  pross  misrei)resentation.  Such  words  do  not  import  that  there  is  a 
special  enfrai^cment  that  tlie  purchaser  shall  take  the  ri.sk  of  the  (piantity. 
1  heir  j)resence  in  a  contract  or  deed  may  render  it  more  dillicult  to  prove 
such  a  mistake  as  will  justify  the  interference  of  eciuity,  but  they  are  not 
tHjuivalent  to  a  stipulation  that  the  mistake,  Avhen  ascertained,  shall  not 
be  a  pround  for  relief     Belknap  r.  Sealey,  14  N.  Y.  143. 

The  deficiency  mu.st  be  such  as  will  naturally  rai.se  the  presumption  of 
fraud,  imposition,  or  mistake  in  the  very  essence  of  the  contract.  Stcbbins 
r.  Eddy,  4  Mass.  414. 

When  tlie  metes  ami  boujids  are  pointed  out,  the  purchaser  takes  the 
risk  of  the  quantity,  (iranlland  r.  Wri;,dit,  2  .Munf.  17t>;  Dalton  ».  Ru.«»t, 
22  Tex.  133. 

"When  the  deficiency  is  considerable,  the  contract  may  be  set  aside  for 
misn  presentation,  ulthouKh  the  sale  is  in  gross.  Pringlc  r.  Samuel,  1 
I.itt.  4:5;  Kent  r.  Carcaud,  17  Md.  'J'.U. 


MISIIEPRKSKNTATION.  07 

(rrosA  aii<l  not  l)y  adincasurcimiit,'  or  if  llicre  was  a  8])ccial 
utipiilatioii  that  tho  (quantities  shall  hu  taken  as  stated.' 

Thon^h  a  i)arty  making  a  re])resuntation  may  at  the  limo 
believe  it  to  1)C  true,  and  liavc  made  it  innocently,  yet  if  after 
discoveriiii;  that  it  was  unlriie  he  sutlers  the  of  her  party  ti.> 
eontiniic  in  ei-ror,  and  to  act  on  the  belief  that  no  mistake  has 
been  made,  this,  from  the  time  of  tlie  discovery,  becomes,  in 
the  contemplation  of  a  court  of  equity,  a  fraudulent  misrej)re- 
sentation,  even  thougli  not  so  originally.'  If,  moreover,  a  man 
makes  a  representation  l)y  which  he  induces  another  to  take  a 
particular  course,  and  the  circumstances  are  afterwards  altered 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  party  who  made  the  representation, 
but  not  to  the  knowledge  of  the  party  to  whom  the  represent- 
ation was  made,  and  are  so  altered  that  the  alteration  may 
affect  the  course  of  conduct  which  may  be  pursued  l>y  the 
party  to  whom  the  representation  was  made,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  party  M'ho  has  made  the  representation  to  communicate  to 
the  party  to  Mdiom  he  made  it,  the  alteration  of  those  circum- 
stances. The  ])arty  to  whom  the  representation  has  been 
made,  will  not  be  held  bound  in  e(piity,  unless  such  a  com- 
munication has  been  made.* 

In  considering  whether  a  man  has  reasonable  grounds  for 
believing  a  representation  to  be  true,  the  position  in  which  he 
is  placed,  and  the  sources  from  which  he  has  drawn  his 
information,  must  be  taken  into  consideration.'  If  a  man  be 
asked  to  give  an  account  as  to  the  fortune  or  circumstances  of 
another,  statements  appearing  in  wills,  deeds,  marriage  settle- 
ments, &c.,  are  reasonable  sources  of  information.     He  cannot 


*  Anon.,  2  Freem.  107  ;    Twyford  v.  ^  See  Sug:.  V.  «fe  P.  .324,  327;  Cordingley 
Wnrciip,    Find),    310;     Baxendale    v,  '  r.  Cheeseborouirli,  3  GifT.  SOil. 

Scale,  10  IJeuv.  001 ;  Stcbbins  )•.  Eddy,  '  Ueynell  v.  Spryc,  1  D.  M.  &  G.  G60. 

4  Mas.  (Amcr.)  414  ;  Marvin)'.  Bennett,  700. 

26  Wend.  (Aiuer.)  100;    Morris  Canal  *  Traill  v.  Barinir,  33  L.  .T.  Cli.  521. 

Co.   V.    ICmnictt,   9  I'ni^c  ( Aiuer.)  lOS.  *  Cullon's  Trn-tee  r.  Johnston,  3  I <ec. 

See  Lcslio  v.  Tonipson,  0  I  la.  20S.  of  Court  of  Session,  3J  scries,  p.  930. 

*  NicoU  V.  Chambers,   1 1  C.  B.  996. 


(IS  AUSKKrUKSENTATlON. 

be  called  on  if  the  stateincntri  therein   Hj)i)earini;  turn  out  to 
be  iueorreet,  to  make  <^uod  his  represeiitatiuii.'     A  mail,  how- 
ever, nuKt  examine  into  the  truth  of  representati(»ns  made  to 
him   bv  utlu-rs,  bi't'ure   imttin,:;   tlu'iii   f.-rwani  :is  tnu-,  ui-  a^  ot 
his  own  knowl((l;:i'.      It'  a  man  makes  a  representation  in  buch 
a  manner  as  to  import  a  knowledi^e  of  the  facts  to  which  the 
rejuvsentation  refers,  and  the  representation  is  not  materially 
(jualitied  by  a  reference  to  any  ttthcr  ])erpon  as  the  source  of 
information,  hr   caniKit   be   liranl    to   say,  on    a   claim   for  the 
rescission  of  the  transaction,  if  the  rei)rescntation  }>rove8  to  be 
untrue,  that  he  made  the  representation  on  the  authority  of 
his  a^ent,  and  honestly  believed  it  to  be  true.     If  a  company 
give  credit  to,  and  assume  {is  true  the  reports  which  are  made 
to  them  by  their  agents,  and  represent  as  facts  the  matters 
stated  in  those  reports,  and  persons  are  induced  to  enter  into 
contracts  on  the  foundation   of  the  assumption  of  the  repre- 
sentations which  have  been   made   to  them,  they  cannot  be 
heard  to  say,  on  a  claim  for  a  ro:>cission  of  the  transaction,  if 
the  representations    prove   to  l)e  untiau',   that   they  honestly 
believed  them  to  be  true.     If  the  company,  instead  of  stating 
a  thing  as  a  fact,  state  merely  that  they  have  received  reports 
from  their  agents,  and  that  they  have  reason  to  believe  the 
reports   to  be  true,  the  case    may  be   ditVerL-nt.^     It    may  bo 
material,  where  proceedings  at  law  are  aimed  against  a  man 
with  a  view  to  obtain  damages  from  him  personally  tor  false 
representations,  that  he  may  have  believed  statements  made  to 
him  by  agents  to  be  true,  but  it  is  ininuiterial  where  the  trans- 
action is  sought  to  be  set  aside.' 

A  misrepresentation,  however,  is  a  fraud  at  law,  although 
made  innocently,  ami  with   !.n    hoiu'st   belief  in  its  friitli,  if  it 

'  AinhHo    r.   ModlvroU.   9   Vc8.    '11  ,  L.  U.  '.\  Kq.  i:t8;   Henderson   v.  Lacon, 

KvnnH  .'.  Wvfttt.  :il  "H-iiv.  1217.  L.  R.  »  K'|.  '.i'-l, 

'  Smith's  Co-s.'.  K<'  llecH.;  I'over  Silv<T  •  SmilliVCiiHi',  Ue  Mccf^o  River  Silver 

Minliic  Co.,  L.  R. '^  Cli.  A].]..  <;iM,  (Wl.  Minin::    Co..    L.    R.   2   Cli.    A|.|..   tU5j 

616;  Rom  f.   KbUiUs   Iiivestnieiit  Co.,  lleuderson  i'.  Locon,  L.  R.  5  llq.  201. 


"MISUKI'KI'.SIONTATION.  G'J 

bo  rflade  by  a  man  wlio  ought  in  the  <liiu  discharge  of  liis  duty 
to  liiive  known  the  truth,  or  who  Im-incrly  knew,  and  ought  to 
have  renienihered,  the  fact  wliich  negatives  the  re[)reHentation, 
and  he  made  under  such  circuniKtanco.s  or  in  sucli  a  way  as  to 
induce  a  reasonable  man  to  l)elieve  tliat  it  was  true,  and  was 
meant  to  be  acted  on,  and  has  been  acted  on  by  him  accord- 
ingly to  liis  prejudice.  If  a  duty  is  cast  upon  a  man  to  know 
the  truth,  and  lie  makes  a  representation  in  such  a  way  as  to 
induce  a  reasonable  man  to  l)elie\e  that  it  is  true,  and  is  meant 
to  be  acted  on,  he  cannot  be  heard  to  say,  if  the  representation 
proves  to  be  nntrue,  that  he  lielieved  it  to  be  true,  and  made 
the  misstatement  through  mistake,  or  ignorance,  or  forget- 
ful n  ess. ^ 

A  statement  which  amounts  to  a  warranty,  must  be  dis- 
tinguished from  a  statement  which  amounts  merely  to  a  repre- 
sentation. A  representation  is  a  statement  or  assertion  made 
by  one  party  to  the  other  before  or  at  the  time  of  the  contract 
of  some  matter  or  circumstance  rebating  to  it.^  A  representa- 
tion is  not  a  part  of  the  written  instrument,  ])ut  is  collateral  to 
it,  and  entirely  independent  of  it.^  The  insertion  of  the 
representation  in  the  instrument  does  not  alter  its  nature. 
Though  a  representation  is  sometimes  contained  in  a  written 
instrument,  it  is  not  an  integral  part  of  the  contract,  and  con- 
sequently the  contract  is  not  broken,  though  the  representation 
proves  to  be  untrue.^  In  order  that  a  statement  or  representa- 
tion may  amount  to  a  warranty,  it  must   appear   that  it  %vas 

•  Burrowfs   v.   Lock,    10  Ves.   470;  misconception,   a   false    ropresenUition 

Mocns  ('.  lloywortli,  10  M.  *t  W.  147;  respcctiDfj  liis  fiister's  fortune  to  a  man 

Pulsford    i'.    kichnrds,    17    Bcav.    95;  who  was  about  to  marry  her.  ami   did 

Ayre's  Case,  '25  Beav.  522;    Trice  v.  afterwards  marry  her.  Sec,  also.  Ainslie 

Macaulav.  2   D.  M.    <fe  0.345;   Hutton  v.    Medlvcolt,    '.)    Ves.     21;     Evans    v. 

V.   Uossiter,  7  D.  M.  &  G.  9;  Rawlins  FowUr,  '21  Beav.  217. 

»'.  Wickham,   3  D.   it  J.  304  ;  Slim  ».  '  Behn  v.  Burncss,  3  B.  <t  S.  753. 

'Voucher,   1   D.  F.   tt  J.  523;  Swan  r.  '  Goram  r.  Sweeting,  2  Wmp.  Saund. 

North  British  Australian  Co.,  2  II.  &  201.     See   Kain  r.  Old,  2  B.  it  C.  634. 

•  ".183;  Henderson   v.   Lacon,   L.  R.  5  /w  Lord  Tenterdcn ;  Cornfooi  (■.  Fowke, 

Eq.  262  ;  comp.  Merewether  v.  Shaw,  2  6  M.  «t  W.  370,  p>^  Lord  Cranworth. 

Cox,  134,  where  a  brother  made,  through  *  Behn  v.  Burness,  3  B.  it  S.  753. 


7D 


.MlSKr,l'Ui:Si:NTATll)N, 


iiitendi'd  tc  form  :i  suhstjintive  part  of  tlie  contract.'  *  A 
warranty  is  an  express  or  inijilied  statement  of  sonietliing 
whii-h  the  i>arty  inakin<,'  it  undertakes  shall  he  a  suhstantivc 
part  of  the  contract,  and  thou_i;h  part  of  the  eontract,  yet  col- 
lateral to  the  e.\i>ress  ohject  of  it.*  .\  rei-rescntatinii  (.f  iiiti'n- 
tion  <loes  not  amount  to  n  warranty.'  h  a  rei)resentation  or 
statement  is  not  of  the  essence  of  the  contract,  there  is  no 
warranty.*  The  circumstance  of  a  man  sellinfc  a  i)articular 
thin<'  bv  its  proper  description  is  n(»t  a  Avarranty  that  the 
tiling  is  of  that  description.  If  the  thing  docs  not  answer  the 
description,  there  is  not  a  breach  of  warranty,  but  a  non- 
compliance with  a  contract  which  he  has  engaged  to  fullil.' 
To  constitute  a  warranty,  it  is  not  necessaiy  that  the  word 
"warrant"  should  occur  in  the  bargain.®  Nor  is  it  necessary 
that  the  statement  or  representation  should  be  simultaneous 
with  the  close  of  the  bargain.  If  it  be  part  of  the  contract,  it 
matters  not  at  what  period  of  the  negotiation  it  was  made.' 
If  a  statement  amounts  to  a  warranty,  the  party  making  it  is 
bound  by  his  warranty.  The  fact  that  he  may  liave  made  the 
statement  in  honest  mistake,  or  that  the  statement  may  be  not 
in  a  material  matter,  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration.^ 


*  I?chn  r.  Burnoss,  3  B.  <t  S.  754.  "  Hopkins   v.   Tanquorny.    15    C.   B. 
'Chnntor   r.    Ilopkin.-.    4   M.  «t  W.  1.^7. /.t  Ji-rvis,  C.  J.;  SUicley  c.  Bully, 

404.   /yr    Lord     Abin^rcr;    Stuclcy  ».  1  II.  A  ('.  417. 

Baily.  1  H.  d:  C.  41.*.. /.tr  Martin,  B.  'Hopkins    v.    TnmiiuTiiy,    15    C.    B. 

*  ii<'nlioin    r.    United   Cuurantec,  «kc.  137.  ^i^r  .Krvis,  C.  .1. 

ABHurance  Co.,  7  Kx.li.  744.  '  Attwood  r.  Small,  f,  (  1.  .t  Tin.  232; 

*  Crun'-ton  ••.  Marsiinl,  5  Exrh.  402;  Anderson  v.  Fit/^craUl.  4  II.  1,.  504, 
Tavlor  >■  Bullt-n.  Ih  77'.i ;  Vtrnedo  v.  per  Lord  Crnnwurtli ;  I^annt-nnnn  v. 
•NVibcr.  1  II.  k  N.  .Ml.  Wl.ito.    in  C    B.   N.   S.  811;  Ikhn  v. 

*Cliant«r   v.    Hopkins.  4    M.    A    W.  Burucss,  3  B.  <t  S.  754,  75'J. 
404.   ]>rr    Lord    Ahinirt-r;     .Stucli-y    v. 
Baily,  1  IL  A  C.  41.'..  i^r  .Martin,  13. 


*  In  ortlcr  to  conntitutc  a  wtimmty  no  partirular  form  <>f  words  is 
necessary.  The  wonl  warrnnt  ncccl  not  be  n.se<L  A  bare  r(|)r(S(ntation 
or  aHBcrtion,  if  Hf)  intentl(<l  an«l  uiulerslood  Ly  the  parties,  will  amount  to 
a  warranty.  But  no  matter  liow  j)Ositivc  the  reprc.nentation  of  the  vendor 
may  be,  it  will   be   regarded  as  an  e.xpression  of   his  belief  or  opinion, 


MISREPRESENTATION.  71 

The  term  "warranty"  is  used  in  two  Kenses.  It  is  eitlicr 
a  condition  on  tlie  fiiilure  or  non-performance  of  wliicli  the 
other  ])arty  may,  if  he  be  so  minded,  repudiate  the  contract 
altogether,  and  so  he  released  from  jiei-foniiini,^  his  jiart  of  it, 
or  it  is  an  independent  agreement,  a  hi-each  of  \vlii(  h  will  not 
jnstifj  a  repndiation  of  the  contract,  hut  will  oidy  he  a  cause 
of  action  for  compensation  in  damages.  The  question  whether 
a  statement,  though  intended  to  be  a  substantive  part  of  the 
contract,  is  a  condition  precedent,  or  an  independent  agree- 
ment, is  sometimes  raised  in  the  construction  of  charter-parties, 
with  reference  to  stipulations  that  some  future  thing  shall  be 
done  or  shall  happen,  and  has  given  rise  to  very  nice  distinc- 
tions. Thus  a  statement  that  a  vessel  is  to  sail,  or  be  made 
ready  to  receive  a  cargo,  on  or  before  a  given  day,  has  been 
held  to  be  a  condition,  while  a  stipulation  that  she  shall  sail 
with  all  convenient  speed,  or  within  a  reasonable  time,  has  been 
held  to  be  only  an  agreement.^  If  the  statement  be  a  condi- 
tion, and  it  be  not  complied  M'ith,  the  party  to  whom  it  is 
made  may,  if  he  be  so  minded,  repudiate  the  contract,  pro- 
vided it  has  not  been  partially  executed  in  his  favor.  If, 
indeed,  he  has  received  the  whole  or  any  substantial  part  of 
the  consideration  for  the  promise  on  his  part,  the  warranty 
ceases  to  be  available  as  a  condition,  and  becomes  a  warranty 
in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  term,  that  is  to  say,  a  stipulation 
by  way  of  agreement,  for  the  breach  of  which  a  compensation 
may  be  sought  in  damages.  Accordingly,  if  a  specilic  thing 
has  been  sold,  with  a  warranty  of  its  quality,  under  such 
circumstances  that  the  property  passes  by  the  sale,  the  vendee 
having  been  thus  benefited  by  the  partial  execution  of  the 

'  Behn  v.  Burness,  3  B.  &  S.  irA. 


unless  it  -was  intciulecl  and  received  as  a  stipulation.     Baraett  v.  Stantoiii 
2  Ala.  ISl ;  Eudor  v.  Scott,  13  111.  35. 


72  :\i  iskf.i'i:i:si:ntation. 

rontract,  nnd  l)ecomo  the  proprietor  of  the  thini,'  sohl,  cannot 
treat  the  faihire  of  tlie  warranty  as  a  condition  broken  (unless 
tlierc  is  a  s])ecial  cttndition  to  tliat  elVect  in  the  contract),  but 
must  have  recourse  to  mm  action  fur  <huna<^cs  in  respect  of  the 
breach  of  warranty.  I'.iit  in  cases  where  tlic  thini^  sohl  is  not 
specific,  and  the  projjcrty  has  not  ]>assed  by  tiie  tale,  the 
vendee  may  refuse  to  receive  the  thini;  ))rolVered  to  him  in 
performance  of  the  contract,  on  the  <;round  that  it  docs  not 
correspond  with  the  dcscrijttive  statement,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  the  condition  expressed  in  tlie  contract  has  not  been  per- 
formed. Still,  if  he  receives  the  thiui!;  as  sold,  and  has  the 
enjoyment  of  it,  he  cannot  afterwards  treat  the  descriptive 
statement  as  a  condition,  but  only  as  an  agreement,  for  a 
breach  tif  wliich  he  may  liriiii;  an  action  for  damages.* 

Affirmations  in  policies  of  insurance  are  in  the  nature  of 
■warranties.  In  the  case  of  policies  of  marine  insurance,  and 
policies  against  fire,  a  warranty  is  also  u  condition.  It  is  an 
implied  condition  of  the  validity  of  the  policy,  that  the  [)arty 
proposing  the  insurance  slinuM  make  a  true  and  complete 
representation  respecting  the  property  which  he  seeks  to 
insure.  Such  policies  are  therefore  vitiated  by  any  nniterial 
misre])resentations,  even  though  not  fraudulently  made.'  In 
the  case  of  life  assurances,  however,  it  is  not  an  implied  condi- 
tion of  the  validity  of  the  policy  that  the  party  proposing  the 
insurance  slu)uld  make  a  true  and  complete  representation 
respecting  the  life  j)roposed  for  insurance.  If  there  be  no 
express  warranty  or  condition  on  the  part  of  the  insured,  a 
policy  of  life  assurance  is  not  vitiated  by  false  representations, 
unless  there  be  fraud.'  li"  there  be  a  ])rovi80  in  a  jxdicy  of 
assurance,  that  any  untrue   statements  shall  avt»id   the   ])oli('y, 

'  lU-lin  r.  nuriifHM,  :{  15.  A  S.  T.'t.'i.  Tliornton.  :J  E.  Jk  U.  KCS;  Stokes  »•.  Cox. 

'  ('nrt<T   V.    Uoi-lim.    3    Hurr.    iVnS;  1    H.  «t    N.  r.:{:i ;   Hiiiin-riimn   r.  White, 

McHJiiH   V.  U.-yw.irth.  10  M.  A   W.  ir.7,  1«  ('.  H.  N.  S.  Mtio. 
j.er  1^T<\   W.nHl.  v-in|.- ;    An.lirH..ii   r.  '  Wliclton    v.    IlnnliBty,  8  E.  4    K 

KiUK<.Tuld.    4     n.'  L.    481;    Mlliiii    v.  Ti'l,  in/ra. 


MiartlOPKKHKN'l  ATI(»N, 


r3 


the  policy  is  vitiated    l>y  any  statciiiLiit    I'aLsc   in   lacf,  wlictliLT 
material  or  not.' 

Til  order  that  a  misrepresentation  may  support  an  action  at 
law,  or  be  of  any  avail  whatever  as  a  ground  fur  relief  in 
equity,  it  is  essential  that  it  should  lie  material  in  its  nature,^* 
and  slioidd  ln'  a  dcteruiiiiinii;  irroiiiid  of  tht;  transaction.' f 
The  misrepresentation  must,  in  the  ]anii;uai,'c  of  the  Koman 
law,  be  dolus  dans  locum  contractul}  There  must  be  the 
assertion  of  n  fact  on  which  the  person  entcrin<i;  into  the  trans- 
action relied,  and  in  the  absence  of  which  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  that  he  would  not  have  entered  into  it  at  all,^:{;or  at 
least  not  on  the  same  terms.^  Both  facts  must  concur ;  there 
must  be  false  and  material  representations,  and  the  party  seek- 
ing relief  should  have  acted  upon  the  faith  and  credit  of  such 


'  Anderson  v.  Fitz^^crald,  4  II.  L. 
481;  Gazenovc  *'.  Hritisli  Equitable 
Assurance  Co.,  G  C.  B  N.  S.  4.37 ; 
comp.  I'crrins  ;■.  Marine,  itc.  Insurance 
Co.,  2  El.  <fe  El.  :il7. 

•  Jennings  »>.  Bron'.,diton,  5  D.  51.  <t 
G.  126.  fciee  Geddea  v.  Pennington,  5 
Dow.  159. 

'  Merewethcr  v.  Slinw,  2  Cox,  131; 
Do  Manneville  v.  Cromiiton,  1  V.  k,  I>. 
.354;  Jameson  v.  Sttiii,  21  Beav.  9; 
Kobson  '■.  Earl  of  Devon.  4  Jur.  N.  S. 
245,  24S;  Goldicutt  v.  Townsend,  28 
Beav.  445;  Jennings  v.  Brou<rliton,  5 
D  M.  &'  G.  136;  Denne  v.  Ligiit,  8  D. 
M.  &  G.  774. 

*  Fraud  is  divided  bj'  the  civilians 
into  dohi!^  (laiix  lorinn  contrtului  and 
dolus  itic'ilcns,  or  accidental  fraud.  The 
former  is  that  wiiich  has  been  the  cause 
or  determining  motive  of  the  transac- 
tion ;  timt,  in  other  words,  without 
which  the  party  defrauded  wouUl  uot 


have  contracted.  Incidental  or  acci 
dental  fraud  is  that  by  which  a  man, 
otherwise  intending  to  contract,  is  de- 
ceived as  to  some  accessory  or  accident 
of  ibc  contract :  for  example,  as  to  tiio 
i|uality  of  the  object  of  sale  or  its  price. 
The  determination  of  the  question  as  to 
the  characler  of  the  do/us  rests  in  each 
particular  case  with  the  court.  Acci- 
dental or  incidental  fraud  is  not  a. 
ground  for  avoiding  a  transactfon,  but 
simjily  subjects  the  party  to  an  action, 
for  damages.  Duranton,  vol.  X,  liv.  3, 
s.  1G9  ;  Toull.  Dr.  Civ.,  liv.  3,  tit.  3.  c. 
2,  s.  5,  art.  90 ;  Bedarride,  sur  Dol.  p. 
45.  This  distinction  does  not  obtain  in 
the  common  law,  and  id  not  admitted  in 
equity. 

^  I'ulsford  I'.   Pvichards,  17  Beav.  87, 
9(5. 

"  G  M..  <fe  W.  378,  per  Lord  Abinger. 
See  Small  i-.  Attwoud,  You.  401. 


*  Smith  T.  Richards,  13  Pet.  26  ;  Coffee  r.  Newsom,  2  Kelly,  442 ;  Mc- 
Donald t.  Trafton,  15  Mc.  225;  Cunningham  v.  Smith,  10  Gratt.  255;  Gil- 
lette. Phelps,  12  Wis.  392;  Taylor  v.  Fleet,  1  Barb.  479. 

t  Morris  Canal  Co.  v.  Emmett,  9  Paige,  1G8 ;  Winston  r.  Gwathmey,  8 
B.  Mon.  19;  Ilalls  v.  Thompson,  1  Smcd.  t.\:  Marsh,  443. 

X  Daniel  v.  ]\Iitdiell,  1  Story,  172;  Hazard  v.  Irviu,  18  Pick.  95;  Brad- 
ley r.  Bosley,  1  Barb.  125. 
G 


74  MlSKl'.I'KKSr.NTATION'. 

representations.**  To  say  tliat  statcnu'nts  nrc  fal!?o  is  one 
thint;;  to  wiv  tliat  a  man  was  (k'ceived  l>y  thcni  to  rntrr  into  ji 
transaction  \a  another  tliin;;.'t  A  niisn'iuvscntalion  to  he 
material  ninst  he  one  necessarily  in^lnenein^'  and  inducing,'  the 
transaction,":!:  and  allectini;  and  ^oing  to  its  very  essence  and 
snhstance.*  Mi>rii>resontations  which  arc  of  guch  a  natnre  as, 
if  trne,  to  adtl  snhstantially  to  the  valne  of  property,'  or  are 
calcnlated  to  increase  sul)stantially  its  ai)parent  valne,"  are 
material.  A  iuisrci)resentation  <jjoes  for  nothiiii;  nnless  it  is  a 
jiroximate  and  immediate  canse  of  the  transaction.''  It  is  not 
cnoii<di  that  it  may  have  remotely  or  indirectly  contrihnted  to 
the  transaction  or  may  have  snpplied  a  motive  to  the  other 
partv  to  enter  into  it.  The  representation  mnst  he  the  very 
"•ronnd  on  which  the  transaction  has  taken  ])lace.  The  trans- 
action must  he  a  necessary  and  not  merely  an  indirect  result  of 
the  representation.*  /It  is  not  liowever  neces.sary  that  the 
representation  should  have  hccn  the  sole  cansc  of  the  trans- 
action.    It  is  enough  that  it  may  have  constituted  a  material 

'  Ilouch    t'.     Uichnnl.son,     3     Storj-  Conybonrc,  0  11.  L.  71 1  ;  Bnrrctfs  Cn.-e. 

(AnnT.).  t'>00,  ]>cr  Story,  .1.  ^  1>.  ■'•  »t  !^-  :"'•    ^*^e  (ItiKK-.s  v.  reiiiiiii;;- 

».Ic-niiin"s  r.  Hrouijhton,  6  D.  M.  <k  ton.  5  Dow.  159. 
G    126.  '  Riirm-rt  v.  IVnncll.  2  II.  L.  497,  531 ; 

•  Ji>  ll'i'M'  Uivcr  Silver  Mining  Co.;  Nio.irs  Cnsc,  :i  1).  A-  .1.  HS7,  V.W;  Unr- 
Smith's  CiiM',  L.  U.'iCli.  Ajip.  Oil.  ry  c.  Crosskcy, '2  J.  it  11. 1  ;   Ni-w  BniMi»- 

•  Hall"\vrt  !•.  rcrrru',  L.  U.  :i  Ktj.  f>-''f>.  wick  ikc.  Uailwuy  (o.   c  Conybi-aro.  9 

•  I'riic  V.  XIacaiilny.  2  D.  M.  &  <  J.  :M  I ;  H.  L.  711.  Sec  Atwood  v.  Simill,  0  CI. 
Jt.-nnin;,'s  v.  Bruuglitxiii,  5  D.  M.  ct  (!.  «t  Fi".  2:{2,  -117;  .lamcson  r.  Sti'in.  21 
12fi      "  Mc'iiv.   .I ;   Uohson  i'.    Karl  of  Devon.  4 

•Small  r.  Attwood.  You.    ICl ;   Dim-  .lur  N.  S.  2J.'i;   Whi-clton  r.   Hanlisty. 

mock  V.  Ilailctt,  L.  K.  2  ("ii.  A].]).  21.  8  K.  A  B.  2:!2  ;  Smith  ,:  Kay,  7  II.  L. 

'Barry   r.   CroHskiy,   2  J.   <k   H.   1;  750,776. 
New    Driinswick,   Ac'  Koilwoy    Co.    v. 


*  McDonsiM  r.  Trnllon,  l.l  Mf.  22."). 

The  reprcHcntationM  netil  not  he  tlic  hoIc  induceincnt.  It  is  sufTiciont 
if  the  jmrty  w<»ul(l  not  have  entiTeil  into  the  contract  if  the  false  reprcscD- 
titiona  luiil  not  l>c»n  made.     Shaw  v.  Stine,  8  Hosw.  157. 

t  Clark  r.  Kverhurt,  iVi  Penn.  IMT;  Unyce  r.  Watsoji.  20  Geo.  517. 

\  Morgan  r.  Snapp,  7  Ind.  537;  Hill  r.  IJush,  lU  Ark.  522;  Ycatca  c. 
Prior,  C  Eng.  58. 


jr  I SH  i:  I 'RESENT  ATION.  7.-) 

imlncciiiciit.      If  ;iny   one   of  sevi-ral   sl;itciiiciil>,   all    in    lli,ir 
iiatiirc  III. ire  or  less  capal)!!'  of  Icadin;^'-  the  jiartv  to  wliom  fli(\ 
arc  addrt'ssc'd  to  adopt  a  particular  line  of  conduct,  be  untrue, 
tho  wliolo  transaction  is  considered  as  having'  been  fraudulently 
obtained,  for  it  is  iini>nssil)le  to  say  tbat  tlic  untrue  statement 
may  n<»t  liave  l)i'en  {.n-ciscly  that  wliich  tiiriicij  the  scale  in  tlie 
mind  of  tlie  party  to  wliom   it  was  addressed.'     A  man  wlio 
has  made  a  false  representation  in  resi)cct  of  a  material  matter 
must,  in  order  to  be  able  to  rely  on  the  defence  that  the  trans- 
action was  not  entered  into  on  the  faith  of  the  representation. 
bo  able  to  prove  to  demonstration    that   it  was  not  relied  on.- 
It  is  not  enou^irh  for  him  to  say  that  there  were  other  represen- 
tations by  which  the  transaction  may  have  been  induced ;'  nor 
can  he  be  heard  to  say  what  the  other  party  M'ould  have  done, 
had  no  misrepresentation  been  made/ 

A  misrepresentation  to  be  of  any  avail  whatever  must 
enure  to  the  date  of  the  transaction  in  (juestion.^  If  a  man 
to  whom  a  representation  has  been  made,  knows  at  the  time, 
or  discovers  before  entering  into  a  transaction,  that  the  repre- 
Bentation  is  false,^-  or  resorts  to  other  means  of  knowled'-'e 
open  to  him,  and  chooses  to  judge  for  himself  in  the  matter, 
he  cannot  avail  himself  of  the  fact  that  there  has  been  mis- 
representation, or  say  that  he  has  acted  on  the  fiiith  of  the 
representation.'  f     Where,  accordingly,  an  iron  company  had 

'  Rcynflli'.  Sprye,  1  D.  M.  &  O.  708;  Smith  v.  Kay,  1  II.  L.  750,  770;  TraiU 

Jennings  v.   Broughton,  5  D.  M.  <t  G.  i'.  Barinsr,  ">'-i  L.  J.  C"li.  521,  527.' 
126;  Clarke  r.  Dickson,  6  0.  B.  X.  S.  '  Irvine  r.  Kirkpatrick,' 7  Bell    Sc 

453;  Smith  v.  Kay,  7  II.  L.  750,  7'75.  Ap.  186.  '       ' 

"  Rawlins  i-.  Wickhani.3  D.  <L'  J.  S04  ;  •  lb.  ;  Vigers  r.  Pike,  8  CI  <fc  Fin 

NicoU's  Case,  \h.  337;  Smith  v.  Kay,  7  050;  Lord  Brooke  r.  Roundthwaitc    6 

II.  L.   750  775;  Kisch  v.  Central  Yen-  Ha.  2t»8,  306;  Nelson  v.   Stocker  4'd 

ezuela  Railway  Co.  3  D.  J.  <t  S.  122.  jfc  J.  465. 

•  Nicoll's  case,  3  D.  <fe  J.  387,  430.  •>  Lvsney  v.  Selby,  2  Lord  Raymond 

*  ReyncU  I.  Sprye,  1  D.  M.  d:  G.  600 ;  1118,  1120;  Pike  v.  Vi"-ers,  '/Dr    A 


*  Anderson  t'.  Buniett,  5  How.  CMiss.)   IGo;  Hughes  r.  Sloan  2  .Ark 
146. 

t  Hough  r.  Richardson,  3  Story,  6o0;  Veascy  r.  Doton.  3  Allen,  380.— 


7C  MlSl!i:iMlKSKNTATl()N. 

sent  some  of  tlioir  <lirci'tni-s  for  tlir  i  .\|>i-('ss  ]»ur)>or:o  of  vcn'fj- 
iiiir  tlu'  irjircpcntations  of  a  man  rospcctiiiir  liis  works,  wlio 
expressed  their  satisfaction  with  tlie  ]>r(>ofs  jinMhu-til,  it  was 
held  that  tlic  company  liad,  Ity  choosing  to  judi^e  for  them- 
selves in  the  matter,  precluded  themselves  from  liein^  able 
to  say  that  they  had  heen  deceived  liy  the  ri']tresentation8  of 
the  vendor,  and  that  it  Mas  their  own  fault  it"  tluy  ha<l  n()t 
availed  themselves  of  all  the  knowledge,  or  means  of  knowl- 
ediTC,  open  to  them.*  So,  also,  where  a  man  had,  before 
purchasing  shares  in  a  mine,  visited  the  mine  and  examined 
into  its  condition,  it  was  held  that  he  had  not  relied  on  repre- 
sentations made  to  him  hy  the  vendor,  and  Mas  not  entitled 
t(»  avoid  the  contract,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  false,  the 
alleged  misstatements  being  such  as  he  was  comj)etent  to 
detect.'  "  Cases,"  said  Lord  Langdale,  in  Clapham  v.  Shilleto,' 
''frequently  occur  in  which,  u]>on  entering  into  contracts, 
misrepresentations  made  by  one  party  have  not  been  in  any 
deirree  relied  on   by  the  other.     If  the  }>arty  to  Mhom  the 

Wnl.  201 ;  Clarke  f.  Mncintosli,  4  Gi(T.  CI.   A  Fin.   r.C.2,  C.-iO;  Kobson  r.  Lord 

134.     Sec  Farebrotlu'r  r.  Ciibson,  1  I).  Devon.  4  .Iiir.  X.  S.  '1\:>;  Hay  wood  i>. 

d:  J.  r.02.  Copo.  25  Ut-av.  14S;  Ni-Imiii  »•.' Stoi  ki-r. 

'  Attwood   r.   Small,    i'>   CI.   it    Fin.  4  1).   tt  .1.   4t'>j;    New    IJrun^w'uk    itrc. 

232.  Uailway  Co.  v.  Conybeare,  D  II.  L.  711, 

'  Jennin^  r.  r.roiie;liton,   17   Beav.  730. 
234.  5  D.  M.'<fc  a.   I2f..      >vc  Lowndes  '  7  Beav.  141). 

r.  Lane,  2  Cox,  303;  Vigers  v.  l'*»ke,  8 


The  rcpn'?cntation  must  Imvc  been  lionotly  confiikrt  in.  Ca.«ey  r.  Allen, 
1  A.  K.  Mar.-h,  4(jr,. 

A  jH-rson  is  not  Imund  by  a  reprcsenliition  so  dearly  and  obviou.^ly 
differing  froii;  tlie  fact,  that  every  person  liavinjx  the  use  of  tiie  enniinon 
organs  of  .'4en«it ion  must  know  it  to  be  erroneous;  for  reliance  i.-*  to  be 
placed  upon  the  knowledge  which  these  offer,  rather  tlian  upon  the  state- 
ment.4  of  any  one.     Irving  r.  Thomas,  18  Me.  41H. 

If  the  ini'<rei>n".ent:ition  r«'n<hT»  the  examination  iefis  jk  rfert  and  full, 
or  makes  the  statements  of  the  jtarly  to  be  in  part  conllile«l  in.  as  in  respect 
to  details  cxt<n<iing  per^onal  impiiry  only  to  general  matters  and  general 
appearanres,  the  fraud  vitiates  tlie  whole  contract.  >hisoa  v.  Crosby,  1 
Wood  &  Min.  342;  Smith  r.  Halnock,  2  Wood  &  Min.  240. 


Misrwi:rui:sKNTATi()x.  77 

representations  wwr  made,  hiiusclt'  iT-xti-fcd  in  llie  j^-opcr 
means  of  vcrilicatiun  hclore  entoriii:;  int(»  the  contract,  it 
may  a]»j)car  lliat  lie  relied  on  the  results  of  his  own  inves- 
tigation and  iiKiuiiv,  and  not  upon  the  rejjrcsentations  nwide 
to  liini  hy  the  other  I'nrty  ;**  or  if  tlie  means  of  investi«^atioii 
and  verification  l>c  at  hand,  and  the  attention  of  the  ])ar:  \ 
receivinj^  the  representation  be  di-awn  to  them,  the  circuii:- 
stanees  of  the  case  may  be  such  as  to  make  it  incumbent  on 
a  court  of  justice  to  imi)ute  to  liini  a  knowled^^e  of  tlie  result, 
wliich,  upon  due  iiupiiry,  he  oui^dit  to  have  obtained,  and 
thus  tlie  notion  of  reliance  on  the  i-epi-esentation  made  to  liim 
may  be  excluded.^  f  A^ain,  when  we  are  endeavorin<^  to 
ascertain  what  ivliance  lias  been  placed  on  representations, 
we  liiust  consider  them  with  reference  to  the  subject-matter, 

'  See  Lowndes  v.  Lane.  2  Cox,  3()3  ;  D.  M.  <t  G.  1 20  ;  Farebrotlier  v.  Gibs m, 

Pickering  c.   Dowsoii,  4    Taunt.    779;  1  D.  tfc  J.  tii)2 ;  ("lark    v.   Macintosh.  4 

Altwood   |..   Small,  (i  CI.  &  Fin.  2:J2 ;  Gitf.  14:{ ;  New  Brunswick  etc.  Kailwav 

Jennings  v.  Broughton,  17  Beav.  234,  5  Co.  v.  Conybeare,  9  H.  L.  711  ;  lloui:li 

I).  M.  it  G.  120;   Haywood  r.  Cope,  25  v.   Richaril.-on,    3   Story  (Ainer.).  091  ; 

Beav.    140;    Houi;h   t:    ltiehard>on,  3  Doggctt  i.  Kiner.^on,  »7>.  733  ;  Mason  u. 

Story  (Anier.)  O'.H  ;  Doggttt  c  Knier-  Crosby,  1   Wood   tt   M.  (Aii.er.)  342; 

son,  (6.  73:5 ;  Mason  v.  Crosby,  1  Wood.  Johnson  >'.  Tuber,  0  Seld.  ( Anier.)  319; 

<fc  M.  (Anier.)  312.  (Jordon  v.  rarmelec,  2  Allen  (Aincr.) 

"  Sec  Lowndes  v.  Lane,  2  Cox,  303 ;  214. 
Jennings  v.  Broughton,  17  Beav.  234,  5 


*  Ualls  v.  Thompson,  1  Smed.  &  Mar.  443 ;  Perkins  v.  Rice,  C  Litt 
218. 

t  There  is  no  misrepresentation,  if  the  fact  is  one  of  \vliicli  every  mm 
is  equally  capable  of  judging  for  himself.  Bell  r.  Heiulei-son,  GIIuw. 
(Miss.)  311 ;  Mississippi  Union  Bank  v.  "Wilkinson,  3  Smed.  &  Mar.  78. 

A  purchaser  is  bound  to  exercise  ordinary  prudence  and  discretion, 
and  if  the  means  of  knowledge  are  within  his  power,  and  he  neglects  to 
make  the  proper  inquiry,  he  loses  his  remedy  against  the  vendor  for  any 
fraudulent  representation  the  latter  may  make.  Bell  r.  Byer.son,  11  Iowa, 
233  ;  Schermerhorn  c.  George,  13  Abb.  Pr.  31.5  ;  "White  v.  Seaver,  25  Barb. 
235  ;  Burton  i\  "Willers,  0  Litt.  32. 

"Where  a  party  is,  from  the  circumstances,  induced  to  rely  upon  the 
representations  of  the  vendor,  he  may  rescind  the  contract,  althougli  the 
means  of  obtaining  information  were  open  to  Liua.  Mattock  c.  Todd,  19 
Ind.  130. 


78 


Misur.rui:si;NTATiON. 


.u\(l  tlio  ri'lativc  kiiowli'd^o  of  the  paitits.  If  the  Piibjcct  is 
cajtaltli'  «if  hriii'^  accurati'ly  known,  and  oiu'  jiarty  is,  or  is 
supposed  tt)  1)0,  pos.-i'ssi'd  of  accurate  knowled^i-,  and  tiic 
other  is  cntirelv  iixtiorant,  or  lias  not  etjual  means  of  knowi 
ed^'e,  and  a  contract  i>  eiitcicd  into,  after  representiitions 
made  by  the  party  who  knows,  or  is  supposed  to  know, 
without  any  means  of  vi-ritication  hein;^  resorted  to  by  the 
other,  it  may  well  enough  he  pie.-umed  that  the  ii^norant 
man  relietl  on  tlie  statements  made  to  him  by  him  who  was 
supposed  to  be  betti-r  informed;''''  l>ut  if  the  subject  is  in 
its  nature  uncertain,  if  all  that  is  known  is  matter  of  infer- 
ence from  somethinir  else,  and  if  the  ]»arties  nud<in:;  and 
receiving;  representations  on  the  subject  liave  ei^ual  knowledge 
and  means  of  acquiring  knowledge,  it  is  not  easy  to  presume 
that  the  representations  made  by  the  one  wouhl  have  much,  or 
any,  influence  on  the  other."  *t 

The  allegation  of  misrepresentation  may  be  ellectually  met 
by  proof  that  the  ]>arty  complaining  was  well  aware  and 
cognizant    of  the    real    facts   of   the  case,   but    the    proof   of 


'  Sic     Ly-noy    v.    Silliy,    2     Lord  '  Sci-  LowruU-s  v.  Luno,  2  Cox,  3fi3  ; 

Raym.    1118-iriO;  Lowndes  v.   Lane,  ILirris  c.  Kombli-,  1  Sim,  111,  6  BUrIi. 

2  C'ox.  3rt:i ;  Edwards  f.  M'Clony,  2  Sw.  7:>'>;   Attwood   »•.  Siiinll,   G  CI.  «t  Fin. 

289;  ViTiion  r.  Keys,   12   East"  037.  4  2:i2;   Knight  v.   Marjurilmiiks.    2  II.  »t 

Taunt. -INK;  Martin  r.  Cotter,  3  J.  A- L.  T\v.    ;!ir. ;   Jenniii;;-!  v.   lWim<^hU)t\,   17 

.'iii«;   Keynell  •'.    Sprye,    1    I).  M.  »t  (i.  r>eav.  23  J,  .M>.  M.  it  (;.  12r. ;   Haywood 

COO;  I'rice  t'.  Matauliiy,  2   1).  M.  it  (i.  r.  Cope,  2.'i  Ik'av.  11<>;  Clarke  r.  Nlatin- 

:;3".t;   Ilawlins   v.   Wickhain,   3   I),  it  .1.  to.sli,  4   (i'\ff.    113;  National  Exi-lian^jo 

3ii4  ;   Stran^ways  v.    Hisdiop.  2'.t   L.  T.  Co.  r.  I)rew,  23  Dec.  of  Ct.  of  Se.'48ion. 

120;   Hi^'tjinH  v'.  Saniels,  2  J.  <t  II.  4f.H;  2d  i^eriea,  p.  1  ;  llonj;h  i'.  Kieliard.ton,  3 

Wanier    »•.    Daniels,     1    Wood.    A    M.  Story  (Ainer.)  C.'.tl ;  Jolinson  r.  Tuber,  t". 

(.Vnier. )  t><);  Maiion  «•.  CroHby,  2  Wood.  Seld.  (Aiuer.)  3l'J. 
ifc  M.  (Amer.)3:j3. 


♦  Picarcl  r.  McCdrmick,  11  .Midi.  CS;  Harvey  r.  Smith.  17  Ind.  272  ; 
Nowlan  r.  Cain,  11  Allen.  'JOl  ;  Heard  /•.  Cainplxll,  2  A.  K.  Mar.'^h,  125 ; 
Nuni.-wtt  r.  Wathun,  2  B.  Mon   211  ;  Spciice  r.  AVhilakor,  U  Port.  2i}7. 

t  IlallH  r.  TliompwHi.  1  Smed.  A:  Mar.  41:5;  Strong  r.  rctors,  2  Iloot. 
OH;  Olnast'ock  r.  Minor,  11  Mo.  055  ;  Fallon  r.  Hood,  :(4  Petin.  :{05  ;  Farrar 
r.  Alston,  1  Dcv.  09;  Saunders  r.  Hutterman,  2  Ired.  :{2 ;  Moore  r.  Turbc- 
villc,  2  IJil>l).  002. 


MISUKrilKSKNTATION.  70 

kiKAvli'dijc  must  l)u  clt-ar  ami  cniicliisivc.  A  iii.ui  wlio,  hy 
luisivjiivsentatiou  or  cunccaliiiunt,  lias  iiiislcd  aiKitlit-r,  eaniKjt 
lie  lieard  to  my  tliat  he  might  luive  known  the  trntli  I»y  pnjj)er 
iiKjiiiiy  ;  Itut  jimst,  in  order  to  he  al)lc  to  rely  on  the  defence 
that  111'  kiu'W  tlif  representation  to  Ik;  nntruf,  he  ahlu  t(^  estab- 
lish the  tart  upon  iiicontcstihle  evidence,  and  heyoiid  the 
possibility  of  a  doubt.'  ••■ 

If  the  subject-matter  is  not  property  in  this  country,  where 
probably  independent  inquiry  would,  be  made  and  inspection 
might  take  })lace,  but  i)roperty  at  such  a  distance  that  any  per- 
son purchasing  it  is  obliged  to  rely  on  the  statement  made  with 
respect  to  it,  the  argument  is  the  stronger  that  reliance  has 
been  placed  on  the  representations.^  f  If  a  definite  or  particu- 
lar statement  be  made  as  to  the  contents  of  property,  and  the 
statement  be  untrue,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  party  to  whom 
the  representation  was  made  may  have  been  acquainted  with 

'  Dyer  V.  ITarsfftve.   10  Ves.   505  ;  Venezuela   Railway   Co.    3   D.  J.  A-  S. 

Unrris  I'.  Kuiiiblc,  T)  Hli^li,  7^.0;  Vipjers  122;  Central  Railway  of  Venezuela  Co. 

V.  Pike,  8  CI.  <k.  Fin.  5()2,  65(1;  Wilson  t'.   Kisch,  L.  R.  2  App.  Ca.    114;  Law- 

V.  yiiort,  6  Ha.  30(5,  375  ;  Shackleton  v.  rence's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Cli.  App.  422.    See 

Sutclirte,    1    Deg.  <fe  S.    C0'.» ;   Martin  v.  Nelson  >:  Stocker.  4  D.  <k  J.  405. 
Cotter,  3  J.  «t  L.  i'M',,  506;  Rcyntll  )'.  ^  Sinitli's  Case;  He  Reese  River  Sil- 

Spryc.  8  lla.  257;  Price  i;.   Maeaulav,  ver  Mining  Co.,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  App.  014. 
2  D.  M.  «fe  Q.  339 ;  Kisch  v.  Central 


*  Boycc  V.  Grundy,  3  Pet.  210  ;  Young  v.  Harris,  2  Ala.  108  ;  Clapton 
I.  Cogart,  3  Smcd.  &  Mar.  363 ;  Conncrsville  v.  Wadleigh,  7  Blackf.  102  ; 
Anilerson  v.  Burnett,  5  IIow.  (Miss.)  ICo. 

The  rule  that  there  is  no  reliance  where  the  means  of  iiiforuiation  are 
iqually  open  to  botli  parties,  does  not  apply  to  nii.srei)resentaiions  wliere- 
by  a  surety  obtains  his  release  from  a  bond.  Hoitt  v.  llolcomb,  32  N.  H. 
18">. 

t  Wherever  a  sale  is  made  of  property  not  present  but  at  a  remote  dis- 
tance, ■which  the  vendor  knows  the  purchaser  has  never  seen,  but  \vhich 
lie  buys  upon  the  representation  of  the  vendor,  relying  on  its  truth,  then 
I  lie  representation  in  effect  amounts  to  a  warranty;  at  least  that  the  vendor 
is  boimd  to  make  good  the  representation.  Smith  c.  Richards,  13  Pet.  20  ; 
Babcock  r.  Case,  01  Penn.  427;  Spalding  r.  Hedges,  2  Bair,  240;  ^lincr  r. 
Medbury,  G  Wis.  295;  Bean  r.  llerrick,  12  '^Ic.  2G2;  Camp  r.  Camp,  2 
Ala.  032. 


80  .MLsKi:rKi:srM'  \  tion. 

tho  nroi»crty.  A  very  intiiuato  kimukil:;*.'  with  the  juvmises 
will  nut  lUH'ossnrily  imply  knowlotjjri'  ut  their  i-x  icl  cuntoiitfj, 
whilf  the  pijrticuhirity  of  the  stateiiieiit  will  naturally  eonvey 
the  notion  of  exact  aiiiiua>urc'iiu'iit.'  The  l;n'l  that  lie  had  the 
nieaU'^  ot"  kiiowiiii;  or  ol"  olilaiiiiiii;  iiiloniiatioii  uf  the  truth 
whieh  he  tlid  not  use  ii>  ni)t  sullicient.'  It  i-  not  indeed  enou^^h 
tliat  he  may  have  heen  \vantin<^  in  eaufion.  A  man  who  Ijjis 
made  false  representations,  hy  which  he  has  indnccl  another  to 
enter  into  a  transaction,  cannot  tui-u  round  ou  the  pi'rs<in  whom 
he  liJis  deiranded  and  say  that  he  oui,dit  to  have  heen  more 
jirudent  and  ouL^ht  not  to  have  eoncluded  tlu  rejiresentation.s 
to  he  true  in  the  sense  which  the  lauijuai^e  used  in  the  pros- 
jiectus  naturally  and  fairly  imports.'  Nor  is  it  enou<;h  that 
there  may  oe  circumstances  in  the  case  which,  in  the  al)sonce 
of  the  representation,  miijht  have  heen  sutHeicnt  to  jmt  him 
on  in(piirv.  The  doetrino  of  notice  has  no  application  where  a 
(listiuct  representation  has  heen  made.  A  man  to  whom  a 
])artienlar  and  distinct  representation  has  been  made  is  entitled 
to  rely  on  the  representation  and  iienl  n(»t  make  any  further 
incpiiry,  although  there  are  circumstances  in  the  case  from 
which  an  inference  inconsistent  with  the  representation  might 
Lc  drawn,*  lie  is  not  hound  to  iufpiirc  uidess  something  has 
happened  to  excite  susj^icion,^  or  unh'ss  there  is  something  in 
the  ease  or  in  the  terms  of  the  rc[>rese'.itation  to  jmt  him  on 
iufpiiry.''     The  party  who  has  made  the  representation  cannot 


'  Hill  »'.  I'iul;K-v.  17  Vo.H.  'i'JA.     See  diilo  »•.  Mncf,  2  Sm.  A-  <;.  •J.'.'..  '23(>,  5  D. 

King  t:  WilH.iii.  C.  Hcnv.  \1\.  M.  d:  (J.  KCJ;  Cox  r.  Mi-Llltlon.  2  Drew. 

*  LyHnc'v  '••  S«'lbv,  '-  Lord  Knym.  lio'.t;  (Jrosvctior  v.  •oi-fii.  '»  Jiir.  N.  S. 
11ls."n'i<>;  Uolxll  .'"  Stcvi-iiH.  a  B.  «t  C.  117;  Kiiwlins  r.  Wicklinm.  :t  1>.  A  .). 
fiij:{;  HawliiiH  v.  Wk-kliain,  :s  D.  &  J.  :51s ;  Kisch  r.  (Vnlr.il  Viiicziu-lii  Unll- 
3r.».  way  ('<)..{   1>.   .1.   »t    S.    p.".;;  Smith  v. 

*  Now  IlnniHwick  Ac  Itailwiiy  Co.  v.  lUosc  liivir  Silver  Mieiiitg  Co.,  L.  R.  2 
Miiir-<Ti<li,'<',  1  Dr.  A  Sm.  :ih2.  E<i  'Jt',1. 

MJrniit  V.  .Miiiit.  C«ni|i.   17U;   Van  i'.  '  Kawliiix  f.  Wicklinm.  .'I  D.  «k  J.  304. 

Cori><',  ;J  .M.  it  K.  2ti'.»;   iri;;hl  »•.  Hartoii,  Si-i-  I'linbrollHT  r.  (olciuii,    1    D.   &  J. 

i7».  2«2;  Dolx'U   r.   St.-vi'iin,  .'{  H.   A  C.  Otri. 

«2S;  I'o|.e  r.  Garlund,  4  Y.  A  C.  :«1M  ;  *  Kent  »•.   Fre«'li<.i.l    I.nn.l  and  Brick 

Wilaon  V.  Short,  •',  Ho.  .'UK'.,  377  ;  Dryi*-  luakin;^  Co.,  L.  U.  I  licj.  .'i'.'H. 


MISUKI'RKSKNTATION.  81 

be  allowed  fo  s.iv  that  lie  fold  him  wlicrc  fiii-tlit-i-  Iiifoniiatiori 
was  to  bu  ;;ot,  uv  rucumineudcd  him  to  take  advic-o,  and  even 
])iit  into  his  hands  tlic  means  of  discoveriii"^  the  truth.  How- 
ever ne^dii::ent  the  party  may  liave  been  to  wliom  the  incorrect 
statement  lias  been  mailc,  vet  lliat  is  a  matter  airurdin;^;  no 
Ljnnmd  of  defence  to  tlie  otlier.  No  man  can  comj)lain  tliat 
another  lias  relied  too  implicitly  on  the  truth  of  what  he  liim-' 
self  stated.'  If  a  vendor  lias  stated  in  his  proposals  the  value; 
of  the  ])ro])erty,  he  cannot,  except  under  special  circumstances, 
ctimplaiii  that  the  ]>urchaser  has  taken  the  value  of  the  ]>r(>p- 
erty  to  be  such  as  he  represented  it  to  be.'  The  effect  of  what 
would  be  otherwise  notice  may  be  destroy(;d  not  only  by  actual 
misrepresentation  but  by  anythinj^  calculated  to  deceive  or 
even  to  hill  suspicion  upon  a  particular  point.^  -  A  vendor  of 
property  on  lease,  for  instance,  is  not  justified  in  paradin^j  upon 
bis  particulars  of  sale  the  existence  ut'  covenants  Ijcneficial  {o 
the  estate  which  he  knows  or  has  good  reason  to  believe  can 
not  be  enforced.-* 

The  maxim  caveat  emptor  does  not  ap])ly  wbei-e  there  is  a 
positive  misrepresentation,  essentially  material  to  the  subject 
in  question,  provided  proper  diligence  be  used  by  the  pur- 
chaser in  thv3  course  of  the  transaction. ^  The  rule  at  least  of 
caveat  emptor^  where  there  is  misrepresentation,  if  applicable 

'  RcyncU  »'.  Sprvo,  1  D.  M.  <t  G.  6fiO,  Darlington    v.    Hamilton,    Kay,    650; 

710;  Ivinvliiis  )'.  VVickham,   :?  I),  tfc  J.  Smith   )'.    Ilani-^on,  2t>  L.   J.   Cli.  412; 

S18;  Smitlw.  Kccse  River  Silver  Min-  Slicanl  c.  ViMiablcs,  :iij  L.   J.   Cii.  'iVl; 

in<;  Co.,  L.  U.  -2  Kq.  '2C.4 ;  I  olbv  i-.  Gads-  Dart.  V.  cfc  1'.  7.">. 
(km,  15   W.   II.    1185.     See   JLIarris  v.  M'lint  c  Wooilin,  9  Ila.  CIS. 

Kcmble.  5  l>liirl>,  7;J<\  *  Lowndes    v.    Lane,    2    t'nx,    36.3  ; 

"  Perfect  v.  Lane,  3  D.  F.  k  J.  3C!>.  Rnbsoa  v.  Earl  of  Devon,  4  Jur.  N.  S 

'  Dykes  v.  IM.ike,  4  Bin^.  X.  C.  403;  245. 
Bartlett  v.  Salmon,  G  D.  M.  <t  G.  41 ; 


♦  Camp  r.  Camp,  2  Ala.  G33  ;  P.irliam  v.  Rundolph,  4  IIow.  (Miss.)  435. 
When  the  misrepresoutation  relates  to  the  title,  the  fact  that  the  deed 
13  on  record  is  immaterial.     Parham  v.  Randolph,  4  IIow.  (Miss.)  435 


82 


Mi^iiti:n:r.si:NTATioN. 


at  all,  iniisit  Ki-  apjtlifd  with  «,Mvat  caution.' •"■  \.ir  will  n  con- 
ilitiiin  in  partirnlars  ot"  salo  that  nusdi'scriptidiis  m-  fiTi>rs  in 
j>artifnlars  i»t'  siilc  shall  nut  annnl  the  Kilo  cover  a  iVaiidulent 
misrepresentation.' 

A  misrepresentation,  to  he  mati-rial,  should  he  in  res])ect 
of  an  ascertainable  fact,  as  distin^nished  tVoin  a  nure  matter 
of  opinion.^f  A  rej)resentation  which  merely  anntunts  to  ii 
statement  of  (»pinion,  jnd^ment,  j)rol>al)ility,  (»r  e.\})ectation,  or 
is  vague  and  indefinite  in  its  nature  and  tenn.s,  or  is  merely  a 
loose,  conjectural,  or  exai^gerated  statement,  goes  for  nothing, 
though  it  may  not  he  true,  for  a  man  is  not  ju.stitied  in  jdacing 
reliance  on  it.*:}:  An  indelinite  representation  ought  to  put 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  nuide  upon  inciuiry."^  If  he  chooses 
to  put  faith  in  such  a  statement,  and  abstains  from  in(piiry,  ho 
has  no  ground  of  comidaint.^     Mere  e.xaggeration  is  a  totally 


•  Colhy  r.  Gadsden,  IT.  W.  U.  11.15.  A  G.  134;  niir'.,'ins  v.  Snmols,  2  .1.  A  II. 
»  Duke    of    Norfolk    v.    Worthy.    1  4f.4 ;  Lcyluiid  v.  lllLni,'wortl),  2  D.  F.  d: 

rnnip.  H37;    Fi-nton  r.  Urowii,   m'Vos.  J.  248. 

144;    Stewart  >:  Alli^ton.   1    Mor.   2f. ;  MInycrnft    v.   Cn-nsy,    2    Kii8t,    '.12; 

Trower    r.    Nfui-omhc,    :{    Mer.    7uJ;  Drysdiile  r.   Macf,  .'i   1).  .M.  tt  (;.  lu7 ; 

Sii.i<kl»-t«in    V.    r^iitclitrf,    1    l>c;j.  tt    S.  Kiscli  f.  CViifral  Vi-iifziu-la  Kailwiiy  ("<>. 

COD;     L.'slif    r.    Tonipson,  U   11a.   27:i.  IS  1).  J.  tt   S.  IJ-J ;    JKiiton    i:  Ma.  m-il. 

Sec   Edwards  I'.  Wickwar,  L.  U.  1  Eq.  L.  U.  2  Eq.  :{.")2 ;    Dimiiiock  r.   Ilalkt, 

C8.  E.  H.  2(li   A  pp.  27. 

*  Lysney  r.  Selby,  2  Lord  Kayni.  '  Lord  Brooke  r.  Uoiuidthwaito,  B 
1118;"  IJrunton  r.  f.ister,  »  Atk.  :;".sf, ;  Ila.  ;i<t4 ;  Diiiimock  r.  llalktt,  L.  K.  2 
Vernon  r.  Keys,  12  East,  f):!2,  4  Taunt.  L'h.  App.  27. 

448;    Jenninj^s  v,  liroughton,  0  D.  M.  "  7i. 


•  The  line  wliirli  separates  case.s  where  the  rule  of  cnrent  emptor 
applies  from  others  which  call  for  relief,  is  not  lUlined  witli  entire  pre- 
cision. Each  one  will  rest,  in  some  measure,  upon  its  peculiar  tireumstance.-*. 
Mean  r.  Ileiriek.  12  .Mc.  202;  Prinofle  r.  Samuel,  I  Lilt.  4M. 

t  Davi.s  r.  Me<kir,  r.  Joluis.  :J."»4;    Manncy  r.  Porter.  :i  Ilumpli.  347. 

J  Payne  r.  Smitii,  20  (leo.  (•.•■.4;  Foley  r.  Cow{,m1I,  (5  HIaikf.  IS;  Turner 
r.   Navigation  Co.  2  Dev.  Ch.  2:5(; ;    Hulls   i\  Thompson.   1    Smi«l.  iV:  Mar. 

44:}. 

A  failure  in  a  speculation  does  not  constitute  p.-mnd  f.>r  relief.  Tur- 
ner r.  Navigation  ("o.  2  Dev.  ("h.  2:50. 

A  miHrepreHentation  wliieii  is  enlculated  to  put  eommnn  pruduuco  off 
itH  guard,  i»  sullieient.     IJcan  r.  llerriclt,  12  Me.  202. 


nisi{i:i'hi:si:nt.\ti()\.  83 

difTorenf  tliliiix  rrmii  iiii.sru])rL'8entHti(»ii  ^l\'  :i  precise  or  delinito 
i'act.' *  Such  Htatenit'iils,  for  instance,  as  a.sscrtionfi  as  to  tho 
value  of  |ir(»j)crty,^  or  representations  by  tlie  ayeiit  of  the  ven- 
dor of  laiiil  that  tlie  title  is  good ,^  or  mere  general  terms  of 
conunciKJ.iliun,'  or  mere  gi-Hcral  and  exaggerated  statements 
as  to  the  i)roiit.s  and  prospects  of  a  company,^  or  as  to  the 
value  of  securities,*^  or  as  to  the  situation  of  j)roi)erty,''  or  mere 
loose,  conjectural,  or  exaggerated  assertions  with  respect  to  a 
subject  matter,  whicli  is  a  matter  of  speculation,  or  is  essen- 
tially of  an  niiccrtain  nature,*  or  mere  conjectural  estimates,'t 
are  only  expressions  of  opinion  or  judgment,  as  to  which 
honest  men  may  well  differ  materially.     !Merc  general  asser- 

'  Ilipfcnns  V.  Snmcls,  2  J.  <fc  II.  4tVI ;  wood  v.  Cope,  25  Bcav.  140;    Ilig^ina 

Ros.s  )'.  I'^states  IiivestiiK'nt  Co.  L.  11.  '.i  v.  Saineh,  2  J.  tfc  II.  400. 

Eq.  i;i('>.  *  New  Brunswick,  etc..  Railway  Co. 

•■  Harvey  t-.  Young,  Yclv.  20 ;    Baily  j-.   Convln'are,   9  II.  L.  711;    Kisch  v. 

r.  MerrcU,   3  Bulst    94  Cro.  Jac.   .'JSt; ;  Central  Venezui-Ia  Railway  Co.  3  D.  J. 

Jcndwine  i'.  Slaile,  2  Esp.  572;  Ingram  &  S.  122;    Denton  i'.  ilaeneil,  L.  R.  2 

V.  Thorp.  7  lla.  74.  Kq.  .•'..■)2.  . 

'  Hume  V.  Pocock,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  "  National  E.vclmnge  Co.  v.  Drew,  23 

SS.*).  Dec  of  Ct.  of  Session,  2d  series,  p.  1. 

*  Fenton    v.   Brown,    14   Yes.    144;  '  Colby  r.  Gadsden,  34  Beav.  416. 

Trowcr  r.  Ncwcome,  3  Mt-r.  701  ;  Scott  "  Jennings  v.  Brouirhton,   .'i  D.  M.  A 

t'.  Hanson,  1  R.   <fc   M.    120;     White  v.  G.  13G ;  Stephens  i;.  Venables,  31  Beav. 

Cuddon.  8  (1.  »fc  Fin.  70(1 ;  Dimmock  v.  124. 

llallelt,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  App.  20.     See  .Jen-  "  Irvine  v.   Kirk-patrick,  7  Bell,  Sc. 

ning.s  V.  Broiighton,  .'>  1>.  M.  ct  G.  120;  App.  Ca  1S6. 
Johuson  V.  Smart,  2  Gitf.    151;    Hay- 


*  A  fraiululcnt  combination  ami  confederacy,  between  a  lessee  and  a 
third  person,  to  induce  tho  lessor  to  purdiase  the  leasehold  tlirouL^h  false 
representations  made  by  such  thirtl  pci-son,  and  an  assertion  of  his  desire 
to  purcliasc  in  case  he  can  oljtain  the  property,  is  not  a  simple  commenda- 
tion.   Adams  v.  Soule,  33  Vt.  538. 

t  A  gross  misrepresentation,  as  to  the  boundaries  of  land,  is  fraudulent. 
Griggs  r.  Woodruff,  14  Ala.  9;  Elliott  r.  Boaly,  9  ^Vla.  772  ;  Fisher  t). 
Pro])art,  o  Iley.  75  ;  Camp  v.  Camp,  2  Ala.  032. 

To  ascertain  the  quantity  of  land  requires  greater  skill  and  a  larger 
proportion  of  science  than  is  acquired  by  the  majority  of  men.  and  a  mis- 
representation in  that  respect  is  material.     Pringle  v.  Samuel  1  Litt.  43. 

The  estimates  of  quantities,  in  tliemsclves  uncertain  and  unmeasured, 
may  differ  at  different  times  from  various  circumstances,  without  any  sus- 
picion of  willful  misrepre3cntation.     Stebbins  r.  Eddy,  4  Mason,  414. 


S-1  M  lSKi:rUi:SENTATl«)N. 

tions  of  ft  vi'inlnr  of  |ii-(ijuM-ty  ;is  t(»  its  \aliu',  (H*  llic  price  ho 
Imti  heou  oHiTC"!  for  it,  or  in  rt'LT-'inl  to  it-  <|ii:ilitirs  mikI  clianu'- 
toristii's;  ns,  fur  iiiRtancc,  that  land  is  I'crtilc  ami  inipruvaliK-, 
or  that  s<»il  is  adapted  f(tr  a  particular  mode  (»f  culture,  ur  is 
well  watered,  or  is  capable  of  ]>ro(hicini;  crops,  or  suppctrtiui; 
cattle,  or  that  a  house  is  u  desirahle  resideiu'e,  iVrc.,  are  assumed 
to  he  so  ctHMMionly  made  hy  jk-iv-ous  lia\  iii^'  property  f«»r  sale* 
that  a  ])urihaser  cannot  safely  place  coiiiidenee  in  them.  At- 
lirmations  of  the  sort  are  always  understood  as  atfordini;  to  a 
jturchaser  no  ^rotnid  for  ne^lectin^  to  examine  for  himself, 
and  ascertain  the  real  condition  of  tlie  ])ro])erty.  They  are, 
strictly  spcakin:^^  ijniiis  <llcf<i.  A  man  who  i-i'lii-s  <»n  such 
alhnnations,  made  hy  a  person  whose  interest  mi^ht  so  readily 
l'rom])t  Ijim  to  invest  the  property  with  exa^'i^erated  value, 
does  60  at  his  ])cril,  and  must  take  the  consequences  of  his  own 
imprudence;  cMj)tor  emit  qiiam  mhihno  jx/iest ,'  vcndito/' 
vendit  <jua//t  majchiio  jjnUst}*  Although  such  aflh-mations 
iiiav  he  erroneous  or  fal>e,  ihcy  will  not,  except  in  extreme 
cases,  he  regarded  as  evidence  of  a  frauthdent  intent.'  A 
statement  of  vahie  may,  liowever,  he  so  plainly  false,  as  to 
make  it  impossible  for  the  party  to  have  believed  wliat  ho 
statech^  So,  also,  statements  with  rei^i)ect  to  the  (piality  or 
eonditiitn  of  hmd,  will,  if  erroneous  or  false,  amitunt  in  ex- 
treme cases,  to  a  nii>reitri'.-cntation   in  law.*     So,  also,  a  state- 

'  1  Roll.  .\b.  101,].!.  Ifi;    Lonkina  t;.  "//>..•    Dimmock   r.  Ilnllott.    L.  U.  2 

flip-'fll,  1  Siii.llO,  1  Li-v.l()'.J;  llnrvt-yt'.  Ch.  Aw.  2(J. 

Y'HiDfj,  Yflv. 'J<i ;  Tniwtr  »'.  Nfwcoiiic,  'Wall   r.   Stuhbs,   1    Miuid.  80;    In- 

:{  MtT.  7<'l ;  Scott  I-.  HniiHon,  1  It.  A:  M.  {;riiiii  r.  Tliorii,  7  I  In.  74. 
r.".»;    Mc<ll>ury    »•■     Wutmin.    «    .Mito.  '  hiinmock    <•.    lIullHt.   L.  U.   2  Ch. 

(Ainer.)  '.i.'>y  ; "  donloii   v.   I'aniu-lco,  "2  Apji.  Uf);   Van  Kjnts  r.  llurrisoii,  6  Hill 

All<-n  ( Aiiier.),  '1\\  ;   .MaiiDiii;^  v.  Albci-,  (Aiiier.),  fi7. 
1 1  ib.  'oTL 


•  Anderson  r.  Ilnll,  2  Pmc«l.  «k  Mar.  079;  Evans  r.  Bollin;:.  .'5  Alu.  550; 
llnllH  r.  TlionipHon  1  Snud.  A:  .Mar.  41:J. 

+  Hr.xlduH  r.  .McCall.  W  Cull.  510;  Peyton  r.  Butkr,  U  II»y.  141 ;  Pitt« 
r.  Coltingliaui  U  Port.  075. 


I^IISHRPRESENTATION.  85 

iiU'iit  ill  (Iio  |ii*()Sj)cct us  (tf  ;i  coiiiii.'iii y,  tliat  tin;  iiroinotcrfl  of 
the  CKiiiiiMuv  li;i<l  t;ikfii  ''a  lari^o  portiDii  ""  of  tin;  Hliures, 
thouirli  Vii^riie  in  its  iiatiii'i',  will  aiiioiiut,  in  (.•xtrciiiu  cases,  tu  a 
inisrc[iivsc'ntati(iii.' 

An  assertion  that  a  tliii'd  |)ci'.-~oii  !ias  oilcTed  a  s|i('cilic(l  simi 
for  the  ])r()iifi'ty,  thi)Hi;li  false,  is,  like  mere  statements  of 
value,  an  assei'tion  of  so  vai^ntt  and  loose  a  cliaracter,  that  a 
purchaser  is  not  justitied  in  relyini^  on  it.'* 

The  difference  hetween  a  false  a\'erment  in  matter  of  fact, 
and  a  like  falseliood  in  matter  of  jud<;ment,  opinion,  and  esti- 
mate, is  wi'll  illusti-ated  l>y  familiar  eases  in  the  hooks.  If  the 
owner  of  an  estate  afHriii  that  it  will  let  or  sell  for  a  fj^iven  sum, 
when,  in  fact,  such  sum  cannot  he  obtained  for  it,  it  is,  in  its 
own  nature,  a  matter  of  judij:;ment  and  estimate,  and  so  the  par- 
ties must  have  considered  it.^  *  But  if  an  owner  falsely  affirm 
that  an  estate  is  let  for  a  certain  sum,  when  it  is,  in  fact,  let  for 
a  smaller  sum,  or  that  the  pi-otits  of  a  business  are  more  than, 
in  fact,  they  are,  and  thereby  induces  a  purchaser  to  i,'ive  a 
higher  price  for  the  property,  it  is  fraud,  because  the  matter 
lies  within  the  private  knowledge  of  the  owner.^     If,  again, 

'  Ilcndersou   v.   Lacnn,   L.  R.  5  E  |.  *  Elciiis    v.   Trcsham,    1     Lev.    102  ; 

257.  Lvsnoy  c.  Sclliy,  2  Lord   Raym.  1118; 

"Sug.  V.  «fc  r.  3,  1  Roll.  Ab.  101,  pi.  iJobfll    i:    Stevens.    3 -B.    <fc   C.    02:3; 

16.  Ihitcliinso!!    /•.    Morlcy,    7  Scott,   341  ; 

'  ITnrvey  v.  Youn^,  Yelv.  20,  1  IJoll.  DiiiiiiK.ck  r.  Haiknt,  'L.  R.  2  Cli.  App. 

Ab,  801,  pi.  Hi;    Leakins  »'.  dispell,  1  2S ;     Medbury     r.     Watson,    0    Mete. 

Sid.  110  ;    coiiip.    binunock    !'.  llallett,  (Amer.)  25"J. 
L.  R.  2  C'li.  App.  28. 


*  If  a  person  soils  a  trict  of  land,  cdaimin'^  to  be  tlie  o;vner,  and 
knowing  that  he  is  not  so,  he  is  guilty  of  fr.aul.  But  if  he  professes 
to  sell,  not  the  paramount  title,  but  a  claim  dcriyed  from  a  particular 
source,  he  is  not  guilty  of  a  fraud,  merely,  because  he  expresses  an  opinion 
as  to  the  legal  value  or  strength  of  his  claim,  which  the  facts  do  not  justify, 
so  long  as  he  makes  no  false  statement  as  to  what  those  facts  are.  Drake 
p.  Latham,  50  111.  270. 

A  false  representation  that  land  will  yield  a  certain  amount  of  salt- 
petre, is  fraudulent.    Perkins  v.  Rice,  G  Litt.  2iy. 


so  MISREPRESENTATION. 

the  owner  of  l:uul  roprosi-iit  that  it  is  well  watoivd,  the  state- 
ment will  not,  alth<.>i:rh  erroneous  or  false,  anK.iint  in  law  to  u 
misrepresentation,  I'xet-j.t  in  ixlivnie  eases;'  hut,  if  he  repre- 
sents that  land  is  situated  on  the  hanks  of  a  river,  whereas  it  is 
some  miles  olV  trom  the  river,  there  is  misrepresentation,  for 
the  false  rej^resentation  is  in  respect  to  a  precise  and  definite 
fact.'  So,  also,  is  there  misrepresentation  «»f  a  fad,  if  the 
representation  he  calculated  to  lead  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
made  to  believe  that  there  is  a  natural  supply  of  water  on  the 
property,  whereas  the  fact  is  that  the  proi»erty,  though  well 
sui)i»lied  with  Avater,  derives  its  supply  artitieially  from  the 
waterworks  of  a  town,  and  l>y  ])aynient  of  rates.'''* 

The  representation  of  an  actual  state  of  things  as  existing, 
is  equivalent  to  the  misrejircsentation  of  a  fact.* 

In  Vernon  v.  Keyes,'  the  true  rule  was  stated  to  be  that 
the  seller  was  liable  to  an  action  of  deceit,  if  he  fraudulently 
misrepresent  the  (piality  of  the  thini;  sold  in  some  particulars 
which  the  buyer  has  not  cfiual  means  of  knowledge  with  him- 
Belf ;  or  if  he  do  so  in  such  a  manner  as  to  induce  the  buyer 
to  forbear  making  the  inquiries  which,  for  his  own  security 
and  advantage,  he  would  otherwise  have  nuide. 

The  rule  that  exaggeration,  as  distinguished  from  misrep- 
resentation, ^oes  for  nothing,  applies  with  peculiar  force  to  the 
case  of  statements  in  the  prospectuses  of  conqKinies.  The 
promoters  of  adventures  are  so  prone  to  form  sanguine  expec- 
tations as  to  the  prospects  of  the  schemes  which  they  introduce 
to  the  public,  that  some  high  eok-ring  and  some  exaggeration 

'.Scott  V.   llanHon,    1    K.  it  M.   I'i'.* ;  '  Ley  In  ml   r.  lllin^rworlli,   '2  D.  F.  A 

Trowcr  V.  Nowcomo,  U  Mer.  7<»1.  J.  2>:i. 

»  Von     Kl>l»8     V.    llarrboD,    5    Hill  M'i;;i;<)tt  f.  Strallon,  Julin.  350;  1  D. 

(Anicr.),  67.  I".  A  J.  ID. 

»  lU  Kimf.  Ca2. 


♦  Pitts  r.  C'ottinf^lumi.  9  Port.  075  ;    Lewis  r.  McLcmon,   10  Ycrg.  205  ; 
Moucll  r.  Colclcn,  i;j  Joliua.  IJOo. 


Misiii;rni:si:NTATi()N.  87 

in  the  dcscriiitioii  of  the  :i<lvant:i<;('s  wliidi  iirc;  likely  to  be  en- 
joyed by  the  subscribers  to  the  uiulLTtakiii;^',  may  <^'ciierally  bo 
expected  in  such  documents.  No  prudent  man  can,  (>\viii[^  to 
the  well-known  prevalence  of  exa^i,'eration  in  such  docuniciits, 
acce[)t  the  prospects  which  are  held  out  by  tin.-  originators  of 
every  new  scheme,  without  considerable  abatement.  But, 
though  the  representations  in  the  jtrospectus  of  a  company 
ought  not,  perhaps,  to  be  tried  by  as  strict  a  test  as  is  applied 
in  other  cases,  they  are  required  to  be  fair,  honest,  and  bond 
fide.  There  must  be  no  misstatement  of  any  material  facts  or 
circumstances.^ 

As,  on  the  one  hand,  mere  assertions  of  value  by  the  ven- 
dor of  property  are  not  fraudulent  in  law,  though  erroneous  or 
false  ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  a  disparagement  of  property  by  a 
purchaser  is  not  a  fi-aud."  Xor  is  a  buyer  liable  for  misrepre- 
senting a  seller's  chance  of  sale  or  probability  of  his  getting  a 
better  price.  It  is  a  false  representation  in  a  matter  merely 
gratis  dictum  by  the  bidder,  in  respect  of  which  he  is  nnder 
no  le"-al  duty  to  the  seller  for  the  correctness  of  his  statement, 
and  upon  which  the  seller  would  be  incautious  to  rely.'  So, 
also,  is  a  representation  by  a  purchaser  to  a  seller,  that  his 
partners  would  not  consent  to  his  giving  more  than  a  certain 
sum,  though  ftdse,  merely  a  gratis  dictum}  But  though  the 
value  of  property  is  generally  a  matter  of  opinion,  a  vendor 
may  put  npon  a  purchaser  the  responsibility  of  informing  him 
correctly  as  to  the  market  value,  or  any  other  fact  known  to 
him,  aftccting  the  value  of  property,  and  if  the  purchaser  an- 
swers untruly,  there  is  fraud.  He  is  not  bound  to  answer  in 
such  cases,  but  if  he  does  he  is  bound  to  speak  the  truth.^ 

'  Kisch   V.    Central   Rnilwny   Co.    of  '  Tate    v.  Williamson,   L.    R.    2   Ch. 

Venezuela,   3  1>.  J.  «fc  S.  122;    Denton       i\pp.  ti'i. 

f.  Miiencil,  L.  K.   2  Eq.  352;    Central  '  Vernon  v.  Keys,  12  East,  637. 

Kaihvay  Co.  of  Venezuela  v.  Kisch,  L.  *  lb. 

R.  a  Ajip  Ca.  113.  *  Smith     v.     Countryman,     3     TiJT. 

(Amer.)  6S3,  per  Miller,  J. 


88  M ISKKPRKSENTATION. 

The  representations  »»f  a  veiitlnr  of  real  estate  tu  the 
vendee,  as  to  the  jtrifc  whicli  hi-  has  paid  lor  il,  arc,  in  resj)eot 
of  the  reliance  to  he  plafetl  on  them,  to  he  regarded  j^enerully 
in  the  same  lii,dit  as  representations  respeetinj^  its  value,  or 
tlic  olVers  wliich  have  heen  made  lor  it.  A  ])urehaser  is  not 
jjistilied  in  ]>hu-inir  contidenee  on  them.'  Uiit  a  false  aflirma- 
tioii  hv  a  vi-nddr  as  to  the  actual  eost  of  property,*"*  or  as 
to  the  amount  spent  upon  it  hy  him  in  improvements,'  may 
amount  to  a  fraudulent  misrcin-esentation. 

A  vendor  is  not  hound  to  disclose  to  the  vendee  the  true 
ownership  of  tlie  proi>erty  lie  is  enj^'a^ed  in  sellin-,',  but  he  is 
iManul  to  al»tain  from  nuikini;  any  misrepresentations  respeet- 
in^'  the  ownership.* 

As  distinguislied  from  tlie  false  representation  of  a  fact,  the 
false  representation  as  to  a  matter  ot  intention,  not  anu)unting 
to  a  matter  of  fact,  thoui,di  it  may  have  influenced  a  transac- 
tion, is  not  a  fraud  at  law,''  nor  does  it  allonl  a  iri'ound  for 
relief  in  cquitv.^  AVhere  a  man  was  induced  to  grant  a  lease 
of  certain  premises  to  another,  upon  a  rei)resentation  that  ho 
intended  to  use  the  premises  for  a  stated  purpose,  whereas  lie 
intended  to  use  and  did  use  them  for  a  different  aiul  illegal 
purpose,  it  was  held  that  the  misrepresentation  ilid  not  entitle 
the  lessor  to  have  the  lease  avoided.'  So,  also,  Mhere  a  man 
who  ha<l  given  a  bond  to  another,  upon  which  judgment  had 
been  entered  up,   had   married    u])on    the  declaration   of   the 

'  Mi-dhnrvf.  Watson.  t'>Mi-tc.(AimT.)  rillowcs    v.    Lord   f!wy<lyr,   1  U.  it  M 

".')'.»'      Ilfimner    v.    Cooper,    8    Allen  Kit ;  NfUhorpe  c.  lloliiiite,  1  Coll. '-'us. 

(Anier.).  :i:JI.  'Vernon    ,:    K.ys.     12    Kn^^t,    6:{7 ; 

'  Saiuiford.     »•.    Hnntlv,    T.\    Wend.  Henimin^wny   ''.   lliiniilton, -1  M.  it  W. 

(Atner.)  'HVJ;   Van  Kppn' r  HarrHon,  .'•  122;   Feret  i:  Hill.  1.')  C.  H.  22.'>. 

Hill  ( Ainer.),  «*>7.  "  .lonlen    v.    .Money,    r.    H.    L.   185; 

*  Ko««  f.  KntaU'S  InvoBtincnl  Co..  I..  Hold  i'.  llutehinson,  t>  D.  M.  A  C>.  S.'iS ; 

u  "  Km  1"*^.  ^^"^'  ''•  ^'■"•'k,  ;<  Sin.  «t  (J.  mv. 

•  Hill  •■.  (Jmy.  1  Stnrk.t.'M  ;  Matnrin  ''  FeKt  r.  Hill,  15  C.  IJ.  2U7. 
V.  'Irt«lennick,'2  >'.  U.  514  ;   but  couii). 


'  Kandfurd  r.  llaii-ly.  2;]  Wcud.  2C0 ;  Pcndcrgiiat  r.  Heed,  29  M.i.  :598. 


MISUICPRKSENTATION.  89 

porsdii  \v]ii>  licld  the  hond  .iihI  warr.iiit  of  nttomc}',  tliat  hIic 
had  ahaiidoiird  tht;  claim,  aii<l  wuidd  mj\rr  truuMc  him  ahoiit 
it,  the  court  wunld  not  restrain  her  I'runi  eiil'orciiii^  at  law  the 
jud^'nient  on  the  warrant  of  attorney.  J^ord  St.  J.eonards, 
however,  dissented  from  the  oitiidon  of  the  majority  of  tlie 
court,  hohh'iiii:  it  to  la-  immaterial  in  (Miuity,  wlictliri-  the  mis- 
representation be  of  Ji  fact  or  an  intention.'  Ihit  if  the  re])re- 
sentation,  tliou^di  in  form  a  rei)resentation  as  to  a  matter  of 
intention,  amounts  in  elfect  to  a  representation  as  to  a  matter 
of  fact,  relief  maybe  had  in' equity.  Where,  accordini;ly,  a 
lessoi-,  j)cndin^-  an  a^rcemi'iit  foi-  a  building  lease,  represented 
to  tlie  intended  lessee,  that  he  could  not  obstruct  the  sea  view 
from  the  houses  to  be  built  by  the  lessee,  because  he  himself  was 
a  lessee  under  a  lease  for  01)9  years,  containing  covenants  which 
restricted  him  from  so  doing  ;  but  after  the  building  lease  had 
been  taken,  and  the  houses  ]»uilt  upon  the  faith  of  the  re[>re- 
seutatiou  the  lessor  surrendered  his  991.)  years'  lease,  and  took 
a  new  lease  omitting  the  restrictive  years,  the  court,  consider- 
ing the  representation  to  have  Ijeen  in  effect  a  representation 
as  to  a  nuitter  of  fact,  restrained  the  lessor  by  injunction  from 
building  so  as  to  obstruct  the  sea  view.^ 

A  representation  which  amounts  to  a  mere  expression  of 
intention  must  be  distinguished  from  a  rejiresentation  which 
amounts  to  an  engagement.  If  a  representation  amounts  to  an 
engagement,  the  party  making  it  is  bound  in  equity  to  make  it 
good.^  Where,  for  instance,  a  man  previously  to  the  marriage 
of  his  daughter  said  he  intended  to  leave  her  10,000/.  which 
M-as  to  be  settled  in  a  particular  way,  and  that  the  person  about 
to  marry  her  was  for  this  reason  to  settle  5,000/.  on  her,  and 


'  Jordcn  v.  Money,  5  II.  L.  185.    Pee  Mlammersley  «-.  De  Biel,  12  01.  & 

Cross  r.  SprifTire,  r> 'lift.  553;    Maunsell  Fin.  45;  Maunsell   »-.  Iledffo.^,  4  11.  J,, 

f.  Iledjre.^.  4  II.  L.  1(189;    comp.   Yeu-  105fj ;  Loxley  r.  Heath,    1   I).   F.  <k  J. 

mans  r.  Williams,  L.  R.  1  Kq.  185.  4'J2 ;  Loffus  v.  Maw,  3  Giff.  592. 

'  I'ic^gott  V.  IStrntton,  John.  350,  1  D. 
F.  ik  J.  49. 


90  MlSIM-l'in'.SI-.NTATION, 

tho  party  did  make  the  .sfttk-iiu-nf  aii<l  iiiarrii-d  tlie  lady,  the 
en^i^'inout  wik>  hold  hiiidinir,  t'<»r  tlit-  circimistaiKH's  niuDunted 
to  a  contract.'  It",  on  the  <>tlitr  liati<l,  a  man  i.n'\  i..ii-ly  to  tho 
marriaijo  of  a  relation  tells  him  tliat  lir  has  made  his  w  ill  and 
left  him  Ids  property,  and  that  he  is  conlideiit  he  never  wonld 
alter  liis  will  to  his  disadvantai^e,  or  tells  him  hefore  his  mar- 
riage to  In's  danirhter  that  lie  would  leave  her  s(^  much  money, 
this  is  a  mere  expression  of  intention,  on  which  the  i>erson  to 
whom  it  is  addressed  is  not  justified  in  relying'.'  A  representa- 
tion which  amounts  to  an  eiiirai^ement  is  enforced  not  as  heing 
a  representation  of  an  intention,  hut  as  amounting  to  a  con- 
tract.' There  is  no  miildle  term,  no  tertium  qiii^l^  hetween  a 
representation  so  ma<le  to  he  effective  for  such  a  ])urpose  and 
being  eftcctive  for  it  and  a  contract.* 

A  misrepresentation  of  a  matter  of  law  does  not  constitute 
fraud  at  law,  because  the  law  is  presumed  to  be  equally  within 
the  knowledge  of  all  the  parties.  Thus,  the  misrepresentation 
of  the  legal  effects  of  a  written  agreement  wliicli  a  party  signs 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  its  contents,  is  not  a  sulHcient  ground 
at  law  for  avoiding  the  agreement.**  But  if  a  man  dealing 
with  another  misleads  him,  and  takes  advantage  of  his  ignor- 
ance respecting  his  legal  position  and  rights,  though  there  may 

•nammcrsW  v.  Do  Bid,   12  CI.  <fe  '  Hold  r.  Ilntcliins  m,  5  D.  M.  AG. 

Fin.  4r>.     S<-e  ISarkworth  f.   Yniin?.   4  r.58  ;  Mimii-^cll  c  llc.l;:.s,  I  II.  L.  1056; 

Dn-w.  1;   I'rolc    v.  Sondv,  2  (iilT.   20;  LoxI.'V  v.  li.atli.  1  1).  V.&  J.  •Jl)2. 

L.ffus  V.  Mnw,  3  GiJr.  5'J2  ;  Alt  i-.  Alt,  «  4  H.  L.  l(»:.r..  prr  Lonl  tVniiworth. 

4  Oiff.  84.  *  Lewis  r.  Joiios,  4  15.  «t  (.'.  50(5.     Sco 

>••  boM  t'.  Iliitcliinpon,  5  D.   M.  A  (J.  Ularklmnrrt  ('us.-.  8   I).  M.  A  G.   177: 

r.58;  Maun«<ll  r.  lii-d^'i-H.  4  II.  L.  KtS'.t ;  Kiu-hduU  v.  Ford,  L.  U.  2  Eq.  750. 
Ix>xK-y  %'.   lliath,    1    I».   V.   &.  i.Vri; 
Laver  v.  Gildur,  'A'l  Beav.  4. 


♦  RiiBsrll  r.  Brnnh.ini.  8  Blarkf.  277;  Si.iit  r.  Brnncft,  5  ITill.  303 ; 
Martin  r.  Wharton,  3H  Alu.  037;  Kish  r.  CUland,  33  111.  23M;  Jasper  r. 
Ilamilton,  3  Dana,  280  ;  Ooode  v.  llawkias,  2  Dcv.  Cb.  303 ;  Clem  p.  Now 
&  Dun.  R.  R  Co..  9  Incl.  4^8. 


MISUKPRKSKNTATION.  91 

Ito  no  li'iral  rr.iud.  fill'  case    may  coiiie  witliiii   tlic    jurisdiction 
cxercMSL'il  hy  c'oiirt.s  ot"  e(iiiity  to  prevent  impo.sitioii.* '^ 

To  conntitute  a  Iraiululent  representation,  tlie  representa- 
tion need  not  bo  made  in  terms  expressly  stating  the  existence 
of  some  tact  wliidi  d.ies  not  exist.  If  a  statement  lu;  made  l)y 
a  man  in  >iicli  terms  as  would  naturally  lead  the  jicrsun  to 
whom  it  was  made  to  snpp(»se  the  existence  of  a  certain  state 
of  Ikcts,  and  if  such  statement  he  so  made  designedly  and 
fraudulently,  it  is  as  much  a  fraudulent  misrei)rosentation  as  if 
the  statement  of  an  untrue  fact  were  maile  in  express  terms.^ 

A  representation  may  he  false  l>y  reason  n<»t  only  of  posi- 
tive misstatements  contained  in  it,  hut  hy  reason  of  intentional 
suppression  whcrehy  the  information  it  gives  assimies  a  false 
color,  giving  a  false  impression,  and  leading  necessarily,  or 
ahnost  necessarily,  to  erroneous  conclusion.^  Fallit  et  qui  ob- 
scure loquitur  et  qui  dissimulat  insidiose  vel  obscure}  Dolum 
malum  a  se  dbesse pracstare  venditor  debet :  qui  non  tantum 
in  €0  est  qui  fdllendi  causa  obscure  loquitur;  sed  et  I  am  qui 
insidiose,  obscure  dissimulate  It  is  the  duty  of  a  vendor  of 
property  to  make  himself  acquainted  with  all  the  peculiarities 
and  incidents  of  the  property  which  he  is  going  to  sell,  and 
when  he  describes  the  property  for  the  information  of  a  pur- 
chaser, it  is  his  duty  to  describe  ev^erything  which  it  is  material 
for  him  to  know,  in  order  to  judge  of  the  nature  and  value  of 
the  property.     It  is  not  for  him  just  to  tell  what  is  not  actually 

'  Infra — Mistake.  Flint    v.    WoodiD,   9    Ila.    r,21  ;    conip. 

'  Loo  V.  Jones,  17  C.  B.  X.  S.  510. /.cc       Bold  i-.  Iliitchinson,  5  I).  M.  ct  G.  5'.«. 
Crompton,  J. ;  Ldwndes  v.  Lane,  2Co.\-,  '  Cullen'3  Trustee  v.  Johnston,  3  Dea 

S03  ;  Walker  v.    Svmonds.  3  S\v.   73;       of  Court  of  Session,  3d  serie.?,  p.  930. 
Drysdale  v.  Mace.'s  D.  M.  «fe  G.  103;  *  Dig.  Lib.  18,  tit.  1,  le<r.  43. 

'  76. 


*  Townsond  r.  Coales,  31  Ala.  428  ;  Drc^  r.  Clarke.  Cooke.  374  ;  Broad- 
well  c.  BroadwcU,  1  Oilman,  59r>. 

A  misrepresentation  as  to  the  legal  effect  of  an  instrument  may  bo 
fraudulent.     Colter  r.  Morgan.  12  B.  Mnn.  278. 


02  Misni:rR!:srATM  i(»N'. 

untruo,  leavliiir  <mt  a  •^vr:it  deal  that  is  true,  ami  l(>avinix  it  to 
tlu'  jmn-liasiT  to  iiitjuirc  whctluT  tlicii'  is  any  i-iror  ur  oiuission 
in  tin-  (li'>cri|iti<>n  or  imt.' 

Tlit'iv  is  a  iiiisiTprt'Sfntation,  if  n  statement  1)0  so  made 
that  the  acutencs:*  and  industry  of  the  pors(»n  to  wlioni  it  U 
made  is  set  to  sleep,  and  he  is  indut-ed  ti»  heliove  the  eontrary 
of  wliat  is  the  real  state  of  the  case.-  It',  for  instance,  there  is 
a  misrepresentation  as  to  tlie  terms  of  a  particular  covenant, 
which  turned  out  to  bo  of  a  much  more  strin^^ent  description, 
there  is  fraud.'  So  also  where  conditions  of  sale  arc  so  ob- 
scurely worded  that  when  taken  in  connection  Mith  the  par- 
ticulars of  sale  they  are  likely  to  nii>lend  an  ordinary  j)urehaser 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  proj)erty,  there  is  iVaud.*  A  representa- 
tion thoui,di  true  to  the  letter,  may  1«  in  substance  a  misrepre- 
sentation." There  is  a  misrepresentation,  if  a  statement  is  cal- 
culated to  mislead  or  throw  the  person  to  whom  it  is  made  otV 
his  <ruard,  thoni^di  it  niav  bo  literally  true."  An  assertion,  on 
the  other  band,  by  a  man  of  what  be  thinks  entitled  in  ])t»int 
of  law  to  assert  is  not  a  misrepresentation,  thouii^h  it  may  not 
be  strictly  correct.' 

A  misrepresentation  is  usually  by  words;  but  it  may  be  a.s 
well  by  acts  or  deeds,  as  by  words  ;  by  artifices  to  mislead  as 
well  as  by  actual  assertions.  Kven  in  chail'erini;  almut  i;^uo<l.? 
there  may  be  such  misrepresentation  as  te»  avoid  a  contract.  A 
man,  who  by  act  (»r  deed  falsely  and  fraudulently  impresses  the 


•  BrnniHins  i.  riiimmcr,  2Drew.  430.  Inycstmcnt  Co.,  L.  R.  .T  Eq.  135.     See 
'  l'oi>o  r.  (iarlaiid.  I    V.   <k    C.    4Ul ;  lloMis  .•.   Norton,  1  Verm.  13S;  Crofta 

SpuniuT  r.  Walsli,  M  Jr.  Ecj.  :\m.  v.  Mi.ldl.-toii,  'i  IC.  it  .1.  'jn). 

'  Fliuhl  V.  Bootli,  1   iJinj;.  N.  ('.  877;  '  IMw.ir.I-*  v.  W  i.kwar,   L.  U.  1   Eq. 

Van  V.  CorjM',  3  .M.  A  C.  'iCU;  Flight  t>.       CS ;  l)ii oik   v.   Hullitt.  L.  K.  2  Cli. 

harion,  ifj. 'IH'i.  '^VV    -'^'   '''•''9   •'•    Hstnti-n  InvcMlincnt 

♦  Tnylor  r.  Martindalc,  1  Y.  <k  C.  C.  Co..  L.  K.  a  Kq.  i:i.'>;  t'oiby  ••.  (Jndsdcn. 
C.  f.r>H.  !.'■  W.  |{.  lls.^;  ChestiT  r   Spurj^o,  Irt 

*  LowndoH  V.  Imw,  2  r<.x,  .'JC:!;  Flint  W.  \l.  .'>7tl. 

9.  \Vo(,<lin,  l»  lln.  f.lH;  M«nlon  r.  'laU  '  Li-iri:"  »■.  ('rokor.  1  Hn.  «t  Re.  ft06 ; 

tier(»all,  1  Stn.  6i  (i.   '>~'J  ;  .M'<"ullo<li  r-.  New    !<riiii'<\vick,    <kc.    Ifailway  Co.    v. 

linxory.  1  K.  4  J.  '-'««;  <;inrk<-  r.  Itj.k  Conyl»i-an\  It  II.   L.  71 1.     bee  Wildo  ». 

■on,  6  0.  B.  N   8.  453 ;   ItoBi  r.  EHtatt-a  Gil>»ou,  1  M.  L  026. 


MTsni:i'Ki:sr:NTATinN. 


03 


mind  id'  niiothcr  wIlli  a  ccif.iiii  htliel'  wlicrehy  li(>  is  mlBlcMl  to 
liis  injury,  isa-s  much  ^'uilty  ofu  misrL'i)reHt'ntation  as  if  lie  had 
deliberately  asserted  a  falsehood.'*  It  is  a  fraud  to  impresH 
upon  a  vendible  article  the  trade-mark  of  another  in  order  to 
give  it  fjjreater  currency  in  the  inai-k<-t.* 

It  is  not  enoii-li  that  tlici-c  lias  been  a  misre])rcsentation, 
and  that  the  misrepresentation  has  conduced  in  some  way  to 
the  transaction  in  question.  It  is  necessary  that  the  misrepre- 
sentation should  have  been  made  in  relation  to  the  transaction 
in  question,  and  witli  the  <IIr('ct  intent  to  induce  the  })arty  to 
Mhoin  it  is  immediately  made,  or  a  third  party,  to  act  in  the 
way  that  occasions  the  injury.'  A  representation  which  has 
been  made  some  time  before  the  date  of  the  transaction  in 
question  is  not  sufficient,  unless  it  can  be  clearly  shown  to  have 
been  immediately  connected  with  it.-*  A  re])resentation  to  be 
of  any  avail  whatever,  must,  unless  under  special  circuiiistanees, 
have  been  made  at  the  time  of  the  treaty,^  and  should  not 
have  any  relation  to  any  collateral  matter  or  other  relation  or 
dealing  between  the  parties.' 


'  Sibhald  r.  II ill,  li  Dow.  2i',i-. ;  Lovcll 
»'.  Hicks,  2  Y.  «k  C.  55;  Craw.shay  v. 
Tliorntoii,  4  M.  A  G.  o87 ;  Barnes  i>. 
lVnm-11.  -2  II.  L.  4'.>7. 

'  C'ra\v>liay  i'.  Tliornton,  4  il.  tfe  G. 
.S87.     Sio  Kerr  on  Injnnction.s,  p.  474. 

*  East  India  Co.  «■.  Ilenclinian,  1  Ves. 
J.  287 ;  Dobell  v.  StcvenrJ,  li  li  cfc  ('. 
623 ;  Harris  v.  Keniblo,  5  Bliijh.  N.  S. 
7:50;  Attwood  v.  Small,  tl  CI.' tt  Fin. 
2;!2,  44,');  Irvine  r.  Kirkpatrick,  7  Bell's 
Sc.  .\p.  ('a.  ISC;  I'.uriies  V.  I'ennoll,  2 
H.  L.  4<t7,  r.2<*;  Smith  v.  Kay,  7  H.  L. 
750,  775 ;  National  Exehan^ije  Co.  v. 
Drew,  2  Macq.  120;  N'icoH's  Case,  3  D. 
&  J.  387,  440;  Jameson  v.  Stein,  21 
Bcav.  6 ;  Denne  v.  Light,  8  D.  M.  ik  G. 


774;  Barry  v.  Cr.>sskp3-,  2  J.  A  H.  1  ; 
"Way  >:  Heartic,  ."2  L.  .1.  C.  P.  34; 
Queen  v.  Sadlers'  Co.,  10  II.  L.  4ii4. 

*  Bnrnes  »•.  I'ennell.  2  II.  L.  4!»7,  530. 
See  Nieoll's  Case,  3  D.  .fc  J.  439; 
Wlieelton  /■.  Ilardisty,  S  E.  &  B.  232: 
]\Iaunsell  i:  Hedges,  "4  IL  L.  1060,  ;)fr 
Lord  St.  Leonards;  Barrett's  Ca.sc,  3  D. 
J.  it  S.  30 ;  Western  Bank  of  Scotland 
V.  Addie,  L.  K.  1  Sc.  App.  Ca.  15.'). 

'Harris  c  Kenible,  1  Sim.  122, />*r 
Sir  J.  Leaeh,  M,  K.  Sec  \\  heclton  v. 
Ilardisty,  El.  Bl.  cfc  El.  232;  lIol«om  r. 
Browne, '.»  C.  B.  N.  S.  445 ;  Smith  r. 
Kay,  7  II.  L.  750. 

°  Harris  i;.  Kemble,  1  Sim.  122.  .I 
Bliph's  X.  S.  730;  National  Exchange 
Co.  V.  Drew,  2  Macq.  103. 


*  JIartin  r.  Pcnnock,  2  Barr.  376 ;  Graves  r.  Wliitc,  1  Frocm.  n? ; 
Chisholm  r.  Gaflsdcn,  1  Strobh.  220;  Smith  v.  JlitclHll.  6  Geo.  4r,H;  Reese 
r.  Wyman,  9  Geo.  430 ;  Cochran  r.  Cummings,  4  DalL  250 ;  Willink  r. 
Vanderwear,  1  Barb.  599. 


94  MISRKPRESEKTATION. 

Mi>rtjinsont:itit»ii,  lutwcvcr,  ^ucs  lor  nothing  cither  at  law 
or  in  cijuity  unk-ss  a  man  lias  been  misled  therehy  to  liis  prejn- 
tlii-e.*  I'r.iud  withiMit  <l;uii:i:^e  is  not  huflicii-iit  to  support  an 
action  or  to  be  af^round  for  nlief  in  eijuity.'  Ihit  it  is  enough 
if  the  reproscntati(»n  ojierafeH  t()  the  ])rejudice  of  a  man  to  a 
very  small  extent.*  Fraud  givt's  a  cause  of  action  if  it  leads 
to  any  sort  of  danuige.'  Hut  in  order  tliat  a  false  representa- 
tion should  give  a  c;uisc  of  action  the  daiuagi-  nni.-t  be  the  im- 
mediate and  not  the  remote  cause  of  the  representation.^ 

^lisrcprcsentation  may  consist  as  well  in  the  concealment 
of  what  is  true  as  in  the  assertion  of  what  is  false.'  If  a  man 
conceals  a  fact  that  is  nuiterial  to  the  ti-imsaction,  knowing  that 
the  other  i>arty  act>  on  the]tresuni])tii>n  that  no  .such  fact  exists, 
it  is  as  much  a  fraud  as  if  the  existence  of  such  fact  were 
expressly  denied  or  the  revei*se  of  it  expressly  stated.*!  ^'<^>n- 
cealment  to  be  of  any  avail  whatever,  either  at  law  or  in  equity, 
must  be  dolus  dans  locum  contractuL     There  must  be  the  sup- 

'  Pdlhill  r.  Walter.  :<  K  it  Ad.  lU  ;  *  Bnrry  i'.  Crosskoy,  2  J.  <t  H.  1. 

Fill"Wcs  r.  Lord  Gwvdyr,  1  Sim.  C.:!,  1  '  'lnpi">  »•.  Lee.  3  R   it  P.  371  ;  Con- 

li.it  M.    S3.     See   Flint.  I'.   Woodin,  y  trnl  Knilwuy  Co.  of  V( m-zufla  ••.  Ki<cli, 

Ila.  61«;  Smith  »•.  Kay,  7  II.  L.  75i».  L.   K.  2  App.   (.'a.   Ill;  Uakvs  v.  Tur- 

*  Cadmaii  c  lloriuT,  18  Vi-s.  10.  Soo  qiiund.  ih.  :;2tj. 
Uo8«  »'.  EstutfS  InvcBtment  Co.,  L.  R.  3  '  Conycrd  v.   Ennis,  2  Mas3.  (Aiacr.) 

E.1.  136.  23C.. 

»  Smith  V.  Kav,  7  H.  L.  750,  775. 


•  Farrar  r.  Alston,  1  Dev.  G9  ;  Idc  v.  Gray,  11  Vt.  Cir» ;  Younp  r.  Bum- 
pass,  1  Frcc-ni.  Ch.  241  ;  Clark  r.  White,  12  Pit.  178;  CJarrow  r.  Davis,  15 
IIow.  272:  Ablx-y  r.  Dcwjy.  2'»  Pcnn.  4i:};  Morgan  r.  lJli^s,  2  Mas-s.  112; 
Fulk-r  r.  ll<.>;.l(n,  2o  M<'.  24:J. 

Tlu-  true  measure  of  damages  is  the  ditlVrenre  between  the  actual  value 
of  the  property  and  the  value  which  it  would  have  possessed  if  it  liati 
lieen  as  represented.     Hawley  r.  Woodruff,  2  I.ans.  419. 

If  a  niiin  i-^  procured  to  do  an  act  even  through  fraud,  yet  tlie  act  will 
lie  valid  if  it  was  such  as  the  law  woulil  have  compelled  him  to  perform. 
Young  r.  HumpasH,  1  Freem.  Ch.  241. 

t  Rawdon  r.  lUatchford,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  a44  ;  Trigg  r.  Ue.id,  r»  IIumi)h. 
520;  Scott  r.  Ilamer,  2  Lans.  507;  Smith  t.  Click,  4  Humph.  180;  Pren- 
liMt.  HU&.S  10  Me.  30. 


MISUi:rKi:SKNTA'II()N. 


U.'j 


prcssion  of  a  fact,  tho  kiiowlod^o  of  w  Ii'k  h  it  is  rcasoiiahlu  to 
infer  would  have  inadi;  tlie  otlu-r  party  to  the  transaction  al»- 
stain  fr(»Mi  it  altoi^'ctlicr.  (Jonci'alMicnt  of  a  iuct  is  jiot  material 
if  tlu;  statement  of  that  fact  woiilil  in. I  liave  induced  a  man 
(otherwise  (h'>irons  of  t-nteriiiL,^  into  the  transaction;  to  ahstain 
from  it'  A  concealment  to  he  material  must  he  the  conceal- 
ment of  somethini^  that  tlie  party  conccalin;^  was  ninler  Sfjinc; 
leg'al  or  e(|uitahle  ohliLraticMi  to  disclose.'' '^^ 

If  the  fact  is  one  which  ouuht  to  have  hecn  disclosed,  the 
circumstance  that  it  may  not  have  been  disclosed  through  mis- 
take, ignorance,  or  forgetfulness,  cannot  betaken  into  consider- 
ation. It  is  immaterial  that  the  concealment  may  not  have 
been  wilful  or  intentional,  or  with  a  view  to  private  ad- 
vantage.^ f     It  is  also  essential  that  tlie  concealment  should  be 


'  I'ulsford  1'.  Riflmrds,  17  15eav.  98. 
Seo  Dnvics  v.  Cooper,  5  M.  it  C.  270; 
Uniiibrigse  v.  Moss,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  58 ; 
Vnne  v.  Cobbold,  1  Excli.  798;  New 
Bruniwick,  itc.  llnihvny  Co.  v.  Jlii^'i^cr- 
iilpe,  1  Dr.  A  Sim.  SOU;  Ki.seli  c  Cen- 
tral Venczuelii  Riiilway  Co.,  3  1>.  J.  it 
y.  122. 

'  Irvine  t'.  Kirlqiatrick,  7  I?oll,  Sc. 
Ap.  186;  Ilor^fail  v.  Thomas,  1  II.  &C. 
100,  per  IJramwiU,  13.;  Arelil)uld  i;. 
Lord  llowtli,  L.  11.  Ir.  2  C.  L.  f)21».  See 
Dalbiac  v.  Dalbiac,  10  Ves.  124;  Dalby 
r.  Pullcn,  1  K.  <k  M.  2'.»(j ;  Adanison  v. 
Evitt,  2  R.  <t  M.  72  ;  Harris  v.  Kcmblo, 
1  Sim.  Ill,  5  ]?lif,rh.  7:?it;  (i roves  v. 
Perkins,  0  Sim.  r)7'' ;  Clarke  r.  'i  i|i])iii£^, 
9  Beav.  284;  ."^tikeman  r.  Daw.-on.l 
Deg.  «fe  S.  90;  Sliacklelon  i-.  Sutcliire, 


ifj.  C09;  Roddy  >:  Williams,  3  J.  <t  L. 
21;  Abbott  ».  Sworder,  4  l)e(j.  cfc  S. 
448;  Pulsford  v.  Richards,  17  Beav.  87; 
Maclure  i:  Ripley,  2  Mae.  <t  G.  274  '; 
Blikc  V.  M()\van,'21  Beav.  003;  Beok 
V.  Kaiitorowiez,  3  K.  ct  J.  247;  Vane  ;•. 
Cobbold,  1  Kxeh.  798;  Ilnywood  v. 
Cope,  -J.-j  Beav.  140;  Brumfit;".  Morton, 
3  .liir.  X.  S.  1198 ;  Evans  i:  Carrin-'ton 
1  J.  &  II.  .''.98,  2  I).  F.  &  J.  481 ;  New 
Brunswick,  itc.  Railway  Co.  v.  Muff:;er- 
idire,  1  l)r.  tfc  Sm.  303;  Greenfield,-. 
Edwards.  2  I>.  .1.  »fc  S.  582,  698;  Cen- 
tral Venezuela  Railway  Co.  |i.  Kisch,  L. 
R.  2  App.  C.a.  112;  Re  Madrid  Rank 
L.  R.  2  Kfj.  210;  Hallows  r.  IVrnie,  L. 
R.  3  Eq.  f)30  ;  Kent  v.  Freehold  Land 
and  Brickmakin<j:  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Eo.  r>'.>s. 
'  Pusey  V.    Desbouverie,  3  P.  Wins, 


*  Pearrett  v.  Sliawbhut.  5  Miss.  323;  Jouzin  r.  Toulmin,  9  Ala.  662; 
Steele  r.  Kinklo,  3  Ala.  3")-2. 

Conccalmont  which  amounts  to  frr.u'l  in  the  sense  of  a  court  of  equity, 
is  the  non-disclosure  of  tho.se  facts  ami  circuui-t.inces  which  one  party 
is  under  some  letral  or  equitable  oblinration  to  connnunicate,  and  which 
the  other  party  has  a  right  not  merely  inforo  eonscicntia,  hxxijurU  et  de  jure 
to  know.    Young  r.  Bunipass,  1  Frecrn.  Ch.  241. 

t  Farnam  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212 ;    Davidson  r.  Moss,  4  How.  (Miss.) 
C73;  Sniolson  &  Co.  r.  Franklin,  6  .Munf.  'J  10. 


'.)(>  MISUr.rUKSr.NTATlON. 

in  rotVrrnco  tn  tin*  jiartit'ular  traiisuctitiii,'  :iinl  sIkhiM  iniiro  ((» 
tlio  ilato  111"  it.  Il'  a  jmrfy  to  a  tniiisaction  concwils,  however 
tnuuluk'iitly,  a  niatciial  lact  tiMiii  aiiotlur  with  \\lioiti  hi;  is 
treatiii::,  l>iJt  that  dtlu-r,  ndtwitlistandiiit;  the  cDiici'ahiK-Mt,  j^ets 
at  tlu'  tart  concealed  hetore  he  enters  into  the  transaction,  the 
conceahnent  f^ocs  for  nothi.nix.  It  is  of  no  avail,  if  the  party 
hfts  become  in  any  \vi\y  acnuainted  with  tlic  tnitli.*'^'  Srtr/i/iic 
utrtiujiic  jmr  jHur/n  contrahentcs  faeit.  The  law  will  not 
interpose,  where  both  ])arties  to  the  transaction  are  e<pially 
well  informed  or  arc  in  ecpial  ii^norancc  as  to  the  actual  con- 
dition or  value  of  the  subject-matter  of  the  transaction." f 

The  ]irincii»les  of  nmrals  rt'i|nire  \\un\'  sci'iijuduus  f^ood 
faith  in  the  dealinj]^  of  men  with  each  other  than  is  exacted 
either  at  law  or  in  eijuity.  The  writers  of  the  moral  law  hold 
it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  seller  to  disclose  the  defects  which  arc 
within  his  knowledge*  Ihit  the  common  law  is  not  so  strict. 
The  law  aims  at  practical  good  and  general  convenience  rather 
than  at  theoretical  perfection.  Tt  does  not  ])rofess  to  vindicate 
everv  detlection  from  ])ropriety,  but  re<iuires  men  in  their 
dealings  with  each  other  to  exercise  }>roper  vigilance  and 
apply  their  attention  to  those  particulars  which  nuiy  be  sup- 
posed to  be  within  the  reach  of  their  o])servation  and  judg- 
ment, and  not  to  close  their  eyes  to  the  means  of  information 

.115;    BowIpb  r.    Rtnnrt,  1   Scli.  A  Lcf.  *  Irvino   v.    Kirki>!i(riik,    7   Ili-ll,  Sc. 

'.J4'.t  ;    Brviii:<"<  v.  IJnuitil,  12  Sim.  ;t.sJ  ;  Ap.  ISO,  "j:;". 

\\\\\U  .•"Willi.*,    17  Sim.  'JlS;    Kuilton  '  Sui,'.  V.  A-  P.  1  ;  Kni-^lit  v.  Mnrjori- 

V.  MiiUliews,  10  (1.  ii  rill.  y.M.  bimks.  11  IWav.  IMS.  'l  H.  A  Tw.  81G. 
'  Grec'U  v.  Gosden,  K  M.  «k  G.  110.  *  (imt.  b.  2,  c.  \'l,  s.  y. 


♦Clark   r.  ^Vllit(^   12  TVt.   178;    I'licttiplacc  r.  Siiylc".  A   IMii^on,  JiI2; 
Pratt  r.  Pliilbrook,  :}:{  Mo.  17. 

t  Iloblw  c.  Parker,  IJl  M«'.  1 1:!;   Dooky  r.  .limiinir.  0  M'>.  <">1  ;   IVrkins  r. 
McGnvock,  Cooke,  -tl."). 

There  Ih  no  friiU'lulcnt  ronrealment  win  re  ii  parly  eiilertains  suspicions 
merely,  but  does  not  po»8Cs»  acttiul  kno\vk«lge.  Crawl'ortl  t.  Ik-rtliolf, 
baxton,  408. 


Mi«ni:rui:si:NTATi()N.  !)7 

^vlli(•ll  arc  aeccs.si1)l(!  1<»  tlicm  :  vujiUtni'ihuH^  7um  dormientilnifi, 
Jura  suhveniunt.  If  jtartius  arc  at  armts'  len/i^tli,  cither  of 
them  may  remain  sik'nt  and  avail  liimself  of  his  KUj)erior 
knowledi^e  as  to  I'acts  and  circiiinstaiices  equally  open  to  the 
observation  of  both,  or  ('([ually  within  llic  reach  of  thcii* 
ordinary  dilii^ence,  and  is  n?idii-  no  obligation  either  at  law  or 
in  e(jnity  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  other  to  cirenmstanees 
affeeting  the  value  of  the  ])roperty  in  qnestion,  although  lie 
may  know  him  to  bo  ignorant  of  them.  If,  for  example,  a 
man  treats  for  tlie  ])urchase  of  an  estate,  knowing  tiiat  there 
is  a  mine  under  the  land,  and  the  other  \rM'[y  makes  no 
inquiry,  the  former  is  not  bound  to  inform  him  of  the  fjict.^  * 
So  also  a  first  mortgagee  with  power  of  sale,  who  has  made 
an  advantageous  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  mortgaged  prem- 
ises, may  buy  up  the  interest  of  a  second  mortgagee  who  sup- 
posed ,the  property  was  insufficient  to  pay  off  both  mortgages, 
without  informing  him  of  the  contract.^ 

'  Fox  V.   Miiorctli.  2  Bro.  C.  C.  420  ;  v.  :Mor^'an.  '.\  D.  F.  .t  J.  723  ;   ArchboM 

Turner  i'.  Harvev,  .lac.  nSO,  178;  Stike-  ?-.  Lonl   Ilnwtli,  Ir.  L.  K.  2  C.  L.  608; 

man  v.  Dawson.  1  Doi;.  &  S.  9i) ;    Laid-  Su-    V.  .k  I'.  1  Itli  i-d.  2,  328,  335. 
law  »•.  Orsan,  2  Wheat.  (Anicr.)  178;  •'  l)oliiian  v.  Nokcs,  22  Bcav.  402. 

Wilde  V.  Gib3on,  1  II.  L.  605;  Walters 


*  Smith  T.  Beatty,  2  Irtd.  Eq.  4o6 .  Livinfrston  v.  Peru  Iron  Co.  2 
Paige,  3C0;  Perkins  r.  ^IcGavock,  Cooke,  415  ;  Uarris  v.  Tyson,  24  Penn. 
347;  Bullcr's  Ajipeal,  2()  Penn.  G3. 

A  purchaser  is  not  bound  to  communicate  information  concerning  ex- 
trinsic circumstances  which  might  influence  the  price  of  a  commodity 
where  the  means  of  intelligence  are  equally  accessible  to  both  parties. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  each  party  must  take  care  not  to  say  or  do  anything 
tending  to  impose  upon  the  other.  Laidlaw  r.  Organ,  2  Wheat.  178; 
Matthews  r.  Bliss,  22  Pick.  48;  Kintzing  r.  McElrath,  5  Barr,  467;  :SIerri- 
weather  r.  Ilerran,  8  B.  Mon.  1G2 ;  Bowman  r.  Bates,  2  Biljb,  47 ;  contra, 
Frazier  r.  Gcrvais,  "Walker,  72. 

The  tenants  in  common  of  a  vessel,  who  are  not  engaged  jointly  in  the 
employment  of  purchasing  or  building  ships  for  sale,  do  not  stand  in  such 
a  relation  of  mutual  trust  and  confiilence  to  each  other  in  respect  of  the 
sale  of  such  vessel,  tliat  each  is  bound  to  communicate  all  the  information 
of  focts  within  his  knowledge,  which  may  affect  the  price.  Matthews  r. 
Bliss,  23  Pick.  48. 


OS  M  ISKKrRESENTATIOK. 

A  vrrv  little,  lio\vi-vrr,  is  Hiitriciotit  to  aflVct  the  iqiplication 
..!'  tlu'  i)i-iniij.li>.  If  a  sinnjlo  wonl  l>c  <lr..j'iti-<l  l.y  a  i.urc-lia>^or 
wliich  tomls  to  luislcaii  the  vcii«li«r,  the  ]>iiiici|>l('  will  ii<>t  hi' 
ullowcil  to  oiK-rati'.'  "A  siiij^Mc  word,"  saitj  I.(»r«l  ("aiiii>bc'll, 
ill  Walters  r.  ^Iorij:aii,'  ''or  even  a  nod,  (»r  a  wink,  or  a  shako 
of  the  head,  or  a  smile  from  the  purehaser,  intended  to  indnee 
the  vendor  to  believe  the  existence  of  a  non-e.\istin_«;  fact  which 
mi<;ht  intluencc  the  priee  of  the  subject  to  be  sold,  is  a  fraud 
at  hnv.  So  d  fortiori  would  a  contrivance  on  the  part  of  the 
purchaser  better  informed  than  the  vendor  of  the  real  value  of 
the  subject  to  be  sold,  to  hiinv  the  vendor  into  an  agreement 
without  i,n\  ini,'  hiia  the  (ip|ii>rtuiiit y  of  beiui,'  fully  informed  of 
its  real  value,  or  time  to  deliberate  and  take  advice  respecting 
the  conditions  of  the  bargain.''  If  a  purchaser  conceal  the  fact 
of  the  death  or  dangerous  illness  of  a  person  of  which  the 
seller  is  ignorant,  and  by  which  the  value  of  the  property  is 
materially  increased,  there  is  fraud.^ 

A  vendor  may  not,  on  the  other  hand,  use  any  art  or  prac- 
tise any  artifice  to  conceal  defects,  or  make  any  representation 
for  the  purpose  of  throwing  the  buyer  off  his  guard.  If  he 
says  or  does  anything  whatever  with  an  intention  to  divert  the 
eye  or  obscure  the  observation  t»f  the  buyer  even  in  relation  to 
open  defects,  there  is  fraud.**  As,  for  e.\am])le,  where  a  man 
having  a  log  of  mahogany  to  sell,  turned  it  over  so  as  to  con- 
ceal a  hole  in  the  underneath  side.'     So  also  where  a  man  sold 

•Turnor  v.   Ilarvoy,  Jac.    ir.U,  178;  Kci-no,  2  Moo.it  Hob.   819.     See  Fop- 

Doliiion  r.  NukeM,   '.i'i'Hi-iiv.  4ii2.     Si'i?  l.uin  v.  Hrooki'.  Ti  IIihh.  '.». 

liavk'H  r.  Cooprr.  :.  M.  A  C  -i?'*;    Bl.iko  '  Hill  r.  Uray.  1  Mark.  134  ;  rillinoro 

f  .Mowatt,  'Jl    l}<nv.   Cuta;  Caiiaock  «.  •'.  llooil.  ft  Hiiifr.   N.  *'.   i'7  ;  Di.b.ll  r. 

Jaimcev.  •.:7  L.  J.rh.  57.  Strv(.ns.  :{   W.   &.   r.  02:1;  liilworda  f. 

»  :i  l")    F.  <1:  .1.  7'.:l.  Wickwar.  L   W.  \  Kt|.  «>s. 

•Turii.T  r.  Ilarv.-y..Iac.  If.'.t;   Kllunl  »  lili-ll  .•.  .Mli.Tloii.  7  H.  «k  N.  172. 
r.  Llandufr.  1  Ha.  tt"  \W.  -.ill ;  .lories  t». 


•  Iloii^'h  r.  llichanlHon,  H  Starj-,  GOO;  Doggott  r.  Emerson,  :]Sl«ry,  732; 
Daniel  v.  .Mitchell,  1  Story,  ITi. 


MISREPRESENTATION.  00 

a  vessel  "with  all  laults,"  ami,  In  I'l'i-c  f  lie  Bale,  took  licr  fnu ii  tin; 
ways  on  \\liifli  sin;  lay  and  kept  licr  allo:it  in  a  dock  in  order 
to  j)rc'vi'nt  an  examination  (jf  her  lioflom,  which  he  knew  to  he 
unsound,  the  purchaser  was  hold  entitled  to  avoid  the  sale  on 
account  ol"  iVaud.' 

So  also  it"  a  vemlor  were  ti>  describe  the  ]»ro|terty  as  let 
upon  lease  under  certuiu  specified  covenants,  benelieial  to  the 
reversion,  which  however  he  knew  could  not  be  enforced,  this 
would  probably  be  considered  delusive.'^  So  also  it"  a  vendor 
knowing  of  an  incumbrance  on  an  estate  sells  without  dis- 
closing the  fact,  and  with  knowledge  that  the  purchaser  is  ii 
stranger  to  it,  and  under  representations  inducing  him  to  Ijuy, 
he  acts  fraudulently  and  violates  integrity  and  fair  dealing.' 
The  same  rule  ap})lies  to  the  case  where  a  ])arty  pays  money  in 
ignorance  of  circumstances  with  which  the  receiver  is  ac- 
(piainted,  and  does  not  disclose,  and  wliicli,  it'  disclosed,  woidd 
have  i)revcnted  the  payment.  In  that  c-aso  the  parties  do  not 
deal  on  equal  terms,  and  the  money  is  held  to  be  unfairly  ol>- 
tained  and  may  be  recovered  back.* 

So  also,  and  upon  the  same  principle,  there  is  fraud,  if  a 
man  wishing  to  advance  an  undertaking,  in  which  he  was  inter- 
ested, determines  to  purchase  shares  in  it,  and  another  pei-son, 
also  interested  in  the  undertaking,  takes  advantage  of  the 
knowledge  he  possesses  of  the  intention  of  the  former  to  defeat 
the  particular  act,  whereby  he  sought  to  accomplish  liis  object, 
and  to  substitute  in  the  place  of  it  a  mode  of  disposing  of  a 
portion  of  his  own  interest  in  the  undertaking.^ 

Mere  reticence  does  not  amount  to  a  legal  fraud,  however 


•  Bairleholc  v.  Walters,  8  Camp.  154  ;  *  1  Veg.  90,  per  Lord  Ilnnlwicke. 

Schneider  v.  Heatli,  ih.  50fi.     See  I'iclv-  *  Martin  v.  .Morj^an,  1  Brod.  <fc  Bing. 

crinsj  v.  Dowson,  4  Taunt.  784  ;  Kain  v.  2S9.     See  Ileane  v.  liogers,  9  B.  i  C. 

Oldi  2  B.  «fc  C.  034  ;  Taylor  v.  Bullen,  5  677,  per  Bavley,  J. 

Exch.  779.  *  Blake  i-."  Mowalt,  21  Beav.  614 

''  Flint  V.  Woodin,  9  Ua.  621. 


1(H)  MlSRKrilKSKNTATloN. 

it  ui:\\  bo  vii'Wi'd  Ity  iimralists.  Mitlirr  p.irtv  niav  lie  iiuioccMitly 
silent  as  ti*  ijrtMuxl  nj.cu  i..  linth  to  oxcrcise  tlit-ir  jiul;;iuciit 
ujioii.  It'  the  jiarties  uvv  at  anii>'  K'liirtli  iicitlicr  ol"  llii-m  is 
uiuivT  any  ol»lii;ati»»ii  to  call  the  attention  ot'tlie  oj^josite  l>arty 
to  farts  or  eireninstanccs  which  lie  ])nij)erly  within  his  knowl- 
edge, althouirh  he  may  sec  that  they  are  n(»t  actually  within  liid 
knowle(l<xe.*  T.ut  a  man  may  l»y  mere  silence,  without  active 
concealment,  i)ro(luce  a  false  impressinn  on  the  mind  of  another. 
Ah'ud  ed  cdare,  aliud  tacevc ;  nequc  enim  id  est  afdre,  quio- 
(jiiid  ret i eras ;  tied  cuin^  quod  tic  sc'ias^  id  i(jnorare,  euwlu- 
mentl  ini  caum^  veils  ens  qnornm  intersit  id  scire?  Silence 
implies  assent  wlien  tliere  is  a  duty  to  speak.  Qui  ta^Jct  con- 
sentire  vkh'tur  ;  qui  jwtest  et  debet  vetare,  juhet.'  If  a  man 
by  his  silence  i)roduces  a  false  impression  on  the  mind  of 
another,  there  is  a  fraud.*  In  Hill  v.  Gray,'  where  a  man 
bought  a  picture  un<ler  a  delusion  as  to  the  ownership  of  it, 
and  the  a^^ent  of  tlie  vendor  encouraged  tlie  delusion  and  took 
advantasre  of  it  in  effecting  a  sale,  Lord  Ellenborough  held  the 
contract  might  be  avoided  on  the  ground  of  fraud.' 

If  a  man  interested  is  present  and  hears  any  false  or  imper- 
fect representation  made,  and  does  not  set  it  right,  he  is  fixed 
by  the  representation.' 

A  vendor  is  by  tlie  civil  law  bound  to  warrant  the  thing  ho 
sells  or  conveys,  albeit  tliere  be  no  express  warranty;  but  the 
common  law  binds  him  not,  unless  there  be  a  warranty  either 
in  deed  or  law.     Caveat  emptor  is  the  ordinary  rule  of  the 

'  ArdihoM  »•.  Lord    H<iwtli,  L.  U.  Ir.  *  Soo  infra. 

'2.  C  L.  ftos.     Sec  WnltiTS  r.  Mor^jau,  :<  '  1  Stark.  ■«:!». 

J)    F.  A  J.  7".i'l.  '  J^'"*'  Ki'atL-.s  r.  Lord  C'adosjan,  10  C. 

'  (  ic.T«.  <!.•  oflic.  lih.  .'{.  rlinp.  I'l,  j>rr  IJ.  fi<M). 

Iy(.rd  Maiii.fi.ld,  :i  Hiirr.  l'J\*K  jx-r  Lord  '  Sliuplierd  r.  Sliar|)o.  4    L.  T.   'J70; 

AliinuiT,  ft  M.  ik  W.  riHl  ;  NfltlinriK!  r.  Dnvi.-H  v.    Dnvit-s,  0  .liir.    N.   S.    13*22. 

Ilol^juU',  1  Coll.  Til.jfr  Kiii^hl  Hriicc,  St-o  Sinitlj  r.  Hank  of  Scotland.  1  Dow. 

1^,1.  l!7'i;    Warner  v.  DanicU,    1    Wood    (& 

•  Moriran  v.  Evanti.  n  CI  «t  Fin.  iJOS;  Mia.  (Amcr.)  90. 
liurkc  t'.  I'rior.  15  Ir.  Ch.  100. 


"M  I S i; I : I'K i:SKNTATin\.  ]  0 1 

coiiminii   law.'*      Il'  tlic  (iL'llrt.s  in   llic  Kuliject-iiialtor  of  sale 
are  i)ateiit,  or  biich  as  iiiii^^lit.   and   >li..iiM  \„-  (Iisc(ivcrc(l  hv  flio 
exercise  of  ordinary  vi:,dlaiKa',  and  the  l)nvfr  lias  an  opportnnif  y 
of  inspedini,'  it,  tlie  law  dues  nnt  re(|nire  the  ncller  to  aid  and 
assist  tlie  observation   <»f  the  j»urchaser.  f     Even   a  warranty 
Mill    not   cover  delects   that   are  jtlaitdy  the  ohjects  of  sense.^ 
Defects,  liowever,  wliicli  are  latent,"  or  eirciiin.stances  materially 
the  snhjcct-matter  of  sale  of  whicli  the  jinrchaser  lias  no  means, 
or  at  least  has  not  e<iual  means  of  obtainini^^  knowled^'e,  must, 
if    known    to  the  seller,  be  disclosed.     Where,  ibr    instance 
particulars  of  sale  described  the  subject  of  sale  as  a  certain 
interest,  if  any,  the  vendor  knowin<^  at  the  time  that  it  was  of 
no  value,  whereas  the  purchaser  had  no  means  of  ascertain  in  i; 
whether  it  was  of  any  value  or  not,  the  transaction  was  held 
fraudulentf     So  also  on  the  sale  of  a  ship,  which  had  a  latent 
defect  known  to  the  seller,  and  whicli  the  buyer  could  not  by 
any  attention  possibly  discover,  the  seller  was  lield  bound  to 
disclose  it."     So  also  where  a  man  sold  an  estate  to  another 
knowing  or  having  reason  to  know  at  the  time,  but  concealiu"- 
the  fact  that  part  of  the  land  was  an  encroachment  upon  a  com- 
mon to  which  he  had  no  title,  the  sale  was  set  aside  as  having 
been  effected  by  fraud.*     So  also  if  one  of  the  parties  to  a 
transaction  knows  that  the  solicitor  of  the  other  party  lias  not 

'Co.  Litt.   102  a,  Uob.  99,  Broom's  =  Melli-h  ?•.  Mottcu.\,  Peake,  ISfi. 

Leg.  Max.  739.  ♦  Smith  r.  JIarrisoii,  20  L.  J.  Ch.  412. 

'  Dyt-r   V.   II  irjjrave,   10   Vcs    507;  '  Mellisli  c.  ilotti-ux,  Teake,  156. 

Grant  r.  Munt,  (.'oop.  173;  Jeniiiiis:^  r.  °  Edwards  v.  M'Cleaj',  2  Sw.  287 
Broii-jhton,  5  I).  M.  &  G.  131 ;  Ilorsfall 
V.  Thomas,  1  U.  <k  C.  100. 


*  Salem  India  Rubber  Co.  v.  Adams,  23  Pick.  250 ;  "Wintz  r.  Morrison, 
17  Tex.  372;  Cecil  v.  Spurgcr,  32  Mo.  462;  Turner  r  Hugirins,  14  Ark 
21. 

t  Buck  ».  McCaugbtry,  5  Men.  21G;  Bnmctt  r.  Stanton.  2  Ala.  is]  ; 
McKinney  r.  Fort,  10  Tex.  220;  LawnsiMi  v.  Bacr,  7  Jonc*.  401  ;  Heading 
V.  Price,  3  J.  J.  Marsb.  01;  Cardwell  v.  McClcUaud,  3  Succd,  150;  Barroa 
V.  Alexander,  27  :Mo.  530. 


1  (t2  M  ISKKrmCSEXTATION. 

ilisc'lost'il  to  liim  some  matter  of  a  iiiatcrial  nature,  the  coneeal- 
ment  may  l»e  iVauduleiit.'  So  also  it'  a  creditor  compounds 
witli  liis  dcl)t(»r  under  a  false  impression  in  wliicli  the  debtor 
kn(»wini;ly  leaves  liim  as  to  the  extent  of  tlio  debtor's  estate, 
there  is  a  fraud.' 

A  veJidor,  liowever,  is  not  bound  to  state  that  the  property 
has  been  recently  valued  at  a  sum  "greatly  less  tlian  the  in- 
tended purchaser's  money,  or  that  the  tenant  has  complained 
of  the  rent  as  being  excessive.' 

A  vendor  may,  on  the  sale  of  chattels,  exi>ressly  stipulate 
that  the  buyer  is  to  take  the  chattels  "with  all  faults."  In 
such  case  it  is  immaterial  how  many  faults  there  are  within  his 
knowledge  ;  but  lie  may  not  use  any  artifice -to  disguise  them, 
or  to  prevent  the  buyer  from  discovering  thcm.^*  Upon  the 
same  principle  it  would  aj)pear  that  if  the  defects  are  of  such  a 
nature  that  they  cannot  be  discovered  by  any  attention  what- 
ever on  the  part  of  the  purchaser,  the  insertion  of  the  condition 
will  not  excuse  the  vendor  from  disclosing  those  Mithin  his 
knowledge.' 

The  maxim  caveat  cmjptor  applies  with  certain  specific 
restrictions  and  qualifications,  both  to  the  title  and  quality  of 
the  subject-matter  of  sale.  In  the  case  of  real  estate  the 
vendor  must  produce  to  the  purchaser  all  documents  of  title  in 
his  possession  or  power,  and  give  information  of  all  material 
facts  not  apparent  thereon.'     Any  charge  n]ion  the  estate,  or 

'  Solomon  v.  llonywood,    12  W.  11.  '  I?iii;li'hole  v.  Walters,  .'U'nmp.  164; 

672.  Stliiaiilcr   v.    lU-atli,  \b.  h^)<\,  »upra,\i' 

'  Vine  r.  MiUhell,    1    Muod.   <t  Kob.  US. 

337.  •  Suff.  V.  k  v.  1  Ith  cd.  p.  8.13. 

»  Abbott  r.  SworiK-r,  4  Do;,'.  d:S.ll'<,  •  Kdwanis    v.    .M'l'lony,   C(»oj».    308; 

460.  Korl'ii  \.  ii  P.  67. 


*  TlicHC  terms  put  upon  tho  jmrclitt.'sor  no  rl.^k  or  hazard  Imt  tliosc  wliicli 
arc  consi^^tcnt  with  the  properly  luin^;  Mich  hh  it  is  deserilKil.  Smith 
r.  Hiehiir.lft,  13  Pet.  '20;  Pcartc  f.  lilackwcU,  12  Ired.  41);  Terry  r.  Huck, 
1  Grctn'B  Ch.  UGO. 


MISRKPUKSKNTATinN.  lO.T 

rii^lit  i-otrictivc  of  the  purcliascr's  aliSdliiti;  (•iijoyiiiciit  of  jt, 
and  the  reli'iiso  of  which  cariiiot  Ix;  |»r(»ciir('(l  hy  tli<;  vciKhjrK, 
phoiild  he  stated;  or  the  omission  may,  in  many  cases,  ren(hT 
the  Bale  voidahle  hy  the  purchaser;**  c.  (j.  a  ri^jjlit  of  sportiri;^ 
over  the  estate,"^  a  right  of  common  every  third  year,'  a  riglit 
to  dif^  for  mines,*  a  liahility  to  repair  the  cluirch  chancel,'  or 
any  otlier  right  or  liahility  wliicli  cannot  fairly  admit  of  com- 
pensation,® or  would  render  the  estate  different  in  suhstancc 
from  what  the  purchaser  was  justified  in  helieving  it  to  he,' 
Avouhl,  if  undisclosed,  liavc  that  effect.^ 

A  vendor  need  not,  however,  direct  attenti<jn  to  defects, 
&C.J  apparent  on  the  title-deeds,^ f  or  to  any  matter  of  which 
the  purchaser  has  actual  or  constructive  notice.*"  I3ut  if  the 
seller  he  informed  hy  the  purchaser  of  his  ohject  in  huying, 
and  tlie  lease  contaiiis  covenants  wliicli  defeat  that  object,  mere 
silence  is  fraudulent  concealment.**  If  there  Las  been  no  fraud- 
ulent concealment  on  the  part  of  the  seller,  but  the  title  turns 
out  to  be  defective,  the  rule  caveat  emptor  applies,  and  the  pur- 
chaser has  no  remedy,  unless  he  take  a  special  covenant  or  war- 


'  Dftrt's  V.  k  p.  T3.  •  Dart's  V.  A  P.  74. 

'  Buniell  V.  Hrown,  1  J.  <t  W.  172.  '  Supra,  pp.  58.  63,  64. 

'  Gibson  )•.  Spurrior,  Pea.  Acl  c.  50.  '  See,  fiirtlier,  Dnrt's  V.  k  P.  74,  75. 

♦  Seaman  v.  Vuwdrcv,  10  Ves.  390.  »  Sui,'.  V.  <fc  P.  8. 

»  Fortcblow   V.  Sliirlcy,  cited  2  Sw.  '"  Dart's  V.  <fc  P.  57,  74. 

223,  "  I'light  V.  Barton,  3  M.  <t  K.  282. 


*  Prout  T.  Roberts,  32  Ala.  427;  Halbcrt  r>.  Grant,  4  Mon.  580;  Ingram 
f.  Morgan,  4  Humph.  6G ;  Steele  r.  Kinkle,  3  Ala.  353;  Garr  t.  Cal- 
laglian,  3  Litt.  21G  ;  Kennedy  r.  Johnson,  2  Bibb,  12;  Campbell  v.  Whit- 
tingham,  5  J.  J.  ^larsli.  9G  ;  Pollard  r.  Rogers,  4  Call,  239;  Snelsbn  «k  Co. 
r.  Franklin,  6  :Munf.  210;  Davidson  r.  iMoss.  4  How.  (Miss.)  673. 

If  a  previous  incumbrance  is  concealed,  the  fact  that  it  is  recorded  is 
immaterial.  Xapicr  r.  Elam,  G  Yerg.  lOS  ;  Young  u.  Hopkins,  G  Mon.  23; 
Campbell  r.  Wiiittingham,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  96;  Steele  r.  Kinkle,  3  Ala.  352; 
Kenr.edy  c.  Johnson,  2  Bibb,  12. 

t  Ward  r.  Packard,  18  Cal.  391 ;  Alston  v.  Outcrbridge,  1  Dcv.  Ch.  18. 


101 


MIRREPRKSENTATION. 


rantv.^  *    A  si-llor  selling  in  ^ood  laitli,  is  nut  resjH)nsil)lu  lor  the 
.■•<Kulnc>:i  of  tlic  title  Itcvond  the  extent  of  liis  eovenants.' 

There  is  no  imitlii'tl  warranty  on  a  tlmiisr  itf  real  or  Icase- 
hol.l  i.ro|»i-rty,  lliat  it  is  lit  lor  the  i.nrpi>si's  lor  which  it  is 
taken.^  The  purchaser  takes  the  risk  of  its  (quality  and  condi- 
tion, unless  he  protects  himself  hy  an  express  apvenient  on 
the  subject.*  There  is  no  inijjlied  duty  cast  on  the  owner  of  ft 
house  in  a  ruinous  and  unsafe  condition  to  inform  a  proposed 
tenant,  that  it  is  unlit  for  habitation,  nor  will  an  action  of 
deceit  lie  aj^ainst  him  for  omittini;  to  disclose  the  fact ;'  but  a 
seller  must  not,  durin-,'  a  treaty  fur,  or  while  intendin<jc  a  sale, 
endeavor  to  conceal  a  defect,  or  to  divert  a  i)urchaser's  atten- 
tion from  it.' 

In  the  case  of  a  sale  of  goods  and  chattels,  the  rule  caveat 
emptor  applies  to  the  title,  unless  the  seller  knows  that  he  has 

•  Parkinson  v.   Lop,  2  East,  [^2^,  per  pell  v.  Groirory.  ^1  IU>av.  250;    but  peo 

Lawrence,  J.;  Stepliens  »•.   Medina,   4  Sinilli  i'.  Marnible,  11  M.  «k  W.  6.     See 

H.  1{.  42«,  Hroom's  Lefj.  Mnx.  74:5.  Broom's  Lcl'.  Max.  744-746. 

'  See  IJree  v.  llolbccli.  Douf,'!.  f.55.  *  Iz.m   >:  (;orton,  5  Binff.  N.  C.  501  ; 

'  Sutton  V.  Tenii)lo,  12  M.  it  W.  52;  yur})lice  v.  I'arnswortli,  7  M.  it  G.  570. 
Hart  V.    Windsor.    12    M.   it    W.   08;  »  Keato.s  r.  lailoLran.  10  C.  B.  6'Jl. 

Keatea  v.  Cadogau,  10  C.  B.  591 ;  Cbaiv  '  Dart's  V.  it  1'.  50. 


♦  Abbott  v.  Allen,  2  Johns.  Ch.  519;  Chostirman  r.  Gardner,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  29;  WuUare  v.  Barlow,  3  Bibb,  171 ;  Jas))cr  r.  Hamilton,  3  Dana,  280; 
Manncy  r.  Porter.  3  Humj)!!.  347;  Frost  r.  Raymond,  2  t'aines,  188;  Wil- 
liamson r.  Raney,  1  Freem.  112. 

When  the  vendor  knows  that  tlie  property  lias  no  existence,  he  com- 
mits a  fruiid  by  selling.  "WanUU  i'.  Fosdick.  13  Jolins.  325;  Terry  r. 
Buck,  1  Green's  Ch.  30(5. 

If  the  v<  ndor  knows  that  he  has  no  title,  and  conceals  that  tact,  tbo 
gale  is  fraudulent.  Chirk  r.  Bainl,  9  N.  Y.  1!^3;  Johnson  c.  Pryor,  5  Hey, 
248;  Bcardsley  r.  Bennett,  1  Duy,  H>7. 

If  the  property  is  known  to  the  vendor  to  l)e  worthless,  he  cannot  pro- 
tect himself  by  telling  the  vendee  to  in(iuire  for  him.self.  (Terry  r.  Buck, 
1  Green's  Ch.  3r,fl 

A  man  who  buyH  a  defective  title  knowini;  it  to  l>e  so.  must  altid<-  tlio 
ron»equence«.  Williumsou  t.  Rauey,  1  Fnem.  112;  Alien  r.  Ilopson,  1 
Frcem.  270. 


:siisRi:i'in;si:NTATinN.  IO5 

no  title  and  conceals  the  I'act,  or  unless  tin;  HiirnMindin;^  '"i'"- 
cmnstanccs  of  the  c:i.se  are  Hiieh  that  a  damnify  niuv  Ik;  im- 
])lie<l.'*  Ill  the  ordinary  case,  for  instance,  of  the  sale  of 
goods  in  11  shoi),  there  is  a  warranty  of  title,  for  the  seller,  by 
the  very  act  of  selling,  holds  himself  out  to  the  buyer  tiiat  he 
is  the  owner  of  the  articles  he  oilers  for  sale.^  If,  however, 
the  surrounding  circunistanees  are  such  that  the  seller  must  he 
taken  to  be  merely  selling  such  a  title  as  he  has  himself  iu  the 
goods,  the  maxim  applies,  and  there  is  no  warranty  of  title." 

The  question  as  to  the  aj)plication  of  the  maxim  caveat 
emptor  on  the  sale  of  goods  in  respect  to  the  quality  of  the 
goods,  M-as  elaborately  considered  by  the  Court  of  Queen's 
Bench  in  a  very  late  case.*  The  cases  on  the  subject  were  dis- 
tinguished as  falling  under  five  diflerent  heads  : 

'  Mnrlcv  I'.   AUonhorovii^h,   :}   Excli.  Clmpmnn    v.    Sjiellir,    14    Q.   B.  621  ; 

r.OO;    Hall   c.  Con.liT,  2  t'.'^IJ.  N.  S.  -JO;  Sims  v.  Mnnynit,  17  (2.  B.  2'.ti  ;  Baguc- 

Eichholtz  r.  Bnniiister,   17  C.  B.  N.  S.  K-y  v.  Ilawk'y,  L.  H.  2  C.  P.  G2i>.     tiee 

■^OS.  Eichlioltz  V.  Bannister,  17  C.  B.  N.  S. 

'  Eicliholtz  I'.  Bannister,  17  C.  B.  N.  708. 

S.  708.  ^  Jones   v.   Ju.-,t,  L.  R.   3  Q.  B.  107, 

*  Marloy  v.   Attonborough,   3   Exch.  202. 
500;    Hall  v.  CondL-r,  2  C.  B.  N.  S.  22; 


*  It  is  a  general  and  familiar  principle  that  there  exists  in  every  sale  of 
lursonal  property  an  implied  warranty  of  title.  Mo(kl)tc  r.  Gardner  2 
II.  ^  G.  177  ;  Boyd  v.  Bopst,  2  Dall.  91  ;  Coolidge  r.  Bri,i,diara,  1  Met.  551  ; 
Lamis  r.  Auld,  7  Murph.  138;  Dean  r.M:i.son,  4  Ct.  428  ;  Paynes.  Rodden 
4  Bibb,  304  ;  Ileiiuance  v.  Vemoy,  G  Johns.  8 ;  Case  r.  Hall,  29  Wend. 
103;  Colcock  o.  Reed,  3  McCord,  513;  Dorsey  v.  Jackman,  1  S.  &  R.  42; 
Strong  t.  Baracs,  11  Vt.  221 ;  Chandler  r.  WiL'gins,  4  B.  ]Mon.  201. 

When  tlie  vendor  is  in  possession  of  the  property  sold,  there  is  an  im- 
j.lied  warranty  of  title.  Long  r.  Ilickinghottom.  28  Miss.  772;  Robinson 
;-.  Rives,  20  Mo.  229;  Huntington  v.  Hall,  30  Me.  501  ;  McCoy  v.  Artchcr, 
3  Barb.  323;  Coleock  p.  Reed,  3  McCord,  513;  Reed  e.  Barl)er,  5  Cow.' 
272;  Norton  r.  Hooten,  17  Ind.  365  ;  Sherman  r.  Champlain  Trans.  Co.  31 
Vt.  162  ;  Scranton  r.  Clark,  39  Barb.  273. 

This  implied  warranty  extends  to  a  prior  lien  or  incumbrance.  Maine 
V.  King,  8  Barb.  535. 

When  the  vendor  is  not  in  possession  of  the  goods,  the  purchaser  buys 
at  his  peril,  unless  there  is  an  express  warranty  of  title.     Edick  r,  Crim. 
10  Barb.  445 ;  Lackey  t.  Stouder,  2  Ind.  370  ;  Scott  tj.  IIi.\,  3  Sneed.  192, 
8 


1 0(J  MlSUKPRKSEXTATloN. 

"  1st.  Wliorc  i^oods  arc  in  i'f<m\  and  may  l>t*  inspected  by 
tl»e  Imycr,  ami  there  is  no  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  seller,  tho 
maxim  citrtutt  <'mj>for  aj)plies,  even  th(»uu:h  the  defect  is  latent, 
and  not  di-coverahh'  <>n  exaiiiiiiation,  at  least  where  the  seller 
is  neither  the  iiianiit'actiirer  iior  tho  grower.'  The  Imyer,  in 
8uch  ease,  has  the  (»j)portunity  of  excrcisin;^;  his  jnd;;nient 
upon  the  matter;  and  if  the  result  of  the  inspection  be  un- 
patisfactorvj  or  if  he  distrusts  his  own  judgment,  ho  may,  if  he 
chooses,  recjuire  a  warranty.  In  sucii  a  case  it  is  not  an  im- 
plied term  i>f'  the  contract  of  sale  that  the  goods  are  of  any 
particular  (juality,  or  are  merchantable.'* 

"  2ndly.  "Where  there  is  a  sale  of  a  detinite  existing  chattel 
specifically  described,  the  actual  condition  of  which  is  capable 
of  being  ascertained  by  either  party,  there  is  no  implied 
warranty.'  f 

"  .'Jrdly.  AVliere  a  known,  described  and  defined  article  is 
ordered  of  a  manufacturer,  although  it  is  stated  to  be  required 
by  the  purchaser  for  a  i)articular  purpose,  still  if  the  known, 
described  and  defined  thing  be  actually  supplied,  there  is  no 

'  Parkinson  v.  Loo,  2  Ea.'^t,  15 14.  *  Barr  v.  Gibson,  3  M.  A  W.  390. 

*  Eiuiiiertoii   t'.  Muttlicws,  7  11.  «fc  N. 
586,  31  L.  J.  Exth.  lU'J. 


*  Stevens  r.  Smith,  21  Vt.  00 ;  0.«goocl  r.  Lewis,  2  IT.  &  G.  400 ;  John- 
Bton  r.  Cope,  2  II.  &  J.  89  ;  Williams  r.  Stoujrliton,  3  Miss.  347;  Kiiijrs- 
l.iirj'  r.  Taylor,  2U  Mc.  TiOS;  Scott  r.  Ronick,  1  B.  Mon.  63;  Mi.xer  r.  Co- 
l)Um.  11  Met.  r)r)9;  Hiclianlson  r.  Johnson,  1  La.  An.  38Si. 

Tlie  exception  only  applies  to  those  cases  where  the  inspection  is  im- 
practicable, as  where  fiood.'i  are  sold  l)elore  their  arrival  or  landinfj.  Tho 
mere  fact  tliat  inspection  i.s  attended  with  inconvenience  or  lahor,  is  not 
equivalent  to  im|»nuticability.     Hyatt  r.  Boyle,  5  G.  &.  J.  110. 

In  every  executory  contract  for  the  future  saU'  and  <lelivery  of  articles 
of  mercban<lise.  tlie  law  clearly  ini|)iits  an  aj;reement  that  the  j;oods  shall 
l)C  of  a  merchantable  value.     Hamilton  r.  (lanyard,  31  Harli.  204. 

t  Williams  r.  Slaujjhler,  3  Wirt.  347;  Deminp  r.  K«)ster,  42  N.  H.  10.>; 
DickenH  r.  Jordan,  11  Ired.  106;  Giiion  r.  Levy,  2  Duer,  170;  Carson  c. 
Bailie,  19  Pcnn.  375. 


MISREPRESENTATION.  lf)7 

•warranty  that  it  shall   answer  the  partiriilar  purpose  intcn<lt  'I 
hy  the  Itiiyer.' 

"4thly,  AVlierc  .1  luamifacturer  or  (h-alcr  cuiitraets  to  .-up 
j)ly  an  article  which  lie  manufactures  (»]•  produces,  or  in  which 
lie  deals,  to  be  applied  to  a  particular  purpose,  so  that  the 
buyer  necessarily  trusts  to  the  judi^nient  or  skill  of  the  manu- 
facturer or  dealer,  there  is  in  that  case  an  inijdied  term  or  war- 
ranty that  it  shall  be  reasonably  fit  for  the  purpose  to  which  it 
is  to  be  applied.'^*  In  such  a  ease,  the  buyer  trusts  to  the 
manufacturer  or  dealer,  and  relies  upon  his  judfrment  and  not 
U]ion  liis  own. 

"5thly.  Wliere  a  manufacturer  undertakes  to  supply  goods 
manufactured  by  himself,  or  in  which  he  deals,  but  which  the 
vendee  has  not  had  the  opportunity  of  inspecting,  it  is  an  im- 
plied term  in  the  contract  that  he  shall  supply  a  merchantable 
article.*  So,  also,  on  a  sale  by  a  merchant  to  a  merchant  or 
dealer,  mIio  has  had  no  opportunity  of  inspection,  there  is  an 
implied  warranty  that  the  article  shall  be  reasonably  fit  for  the 
purpose  for  which  it  is  supplied.*  In  every  contract  to  supply 
goods  of  a  specified  description,  which  the  buyer  has  no  op- 
portunity of  inspecting,  the  goods  must  not  only  in  fact 
answer  the  specific  description,  but  must  also  be  saleable  and 
merchantable  under  that  description.'"' 

'  Chanter  )'.  Hopkins.  4  M.  ifc  W.  399  ;  Taunt.  108;    Sliophenl   r.  Tybus   3M 

Ollivant  V.  Bayley.  5  Q.  B.  28«.  &  G.  SOS. 

»  Brown    c.   Edijinixton.    2  :M.    <t  G.  ♦  Bi-^^e  v.  Parkinson.  7  H.  (fc  N.  950  ; 

279;  Jones  v.  AVriglit,  5  Binir.  53:{.  31  L.  J.  Excli.  3(tl. 

'Laing  v.   Fidgeon,  4   Cauip.  109,  6  'Jones  v.  Just,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  197. 


*  Brenton  v.  Davis,  8  Blackf.  oOS  ;  Beers  r.  William?.  IG  III.  00;  Wal- 
ton v.  Cody,  1  Wis.  420;  Brown  i\  .Alurplice,  :}!  Miss.  91 ;  Cunninirham  r, 
Hull,  Sprague,  404;  Iloe  r.  SanI)ora,  21  N.  Y.  552;  Rodrrers  r.  Nilcu.  11 
Ohio  St.  R.  48;  Page  r.  Ford,  42  Ind.  46  ;  Howard  v.  Iloey.  23  Wend. 
350;  Miner  v.  Granger,  4  Oilman,  (lO;  Taylor  r.  Sands.  5  Johns.  403; 
Overton  r.  Phclan,  2  Head,  445;  Fisk  r.  Tank,  12  Wis.  27G;  Pease  v. 
Sabin,  .38  Vt.  432;  Freeman  v.  Clut^,  3  Bar!).  421 ;  Gallagher  r.  Waring.  9 
"Wend.  20  ;  Getty  r.  Rountrce,  2  Cband.  28. 


HUS  MlSKl.l'Kl-.Sr.NTATlON'. 

Till'  rule  cav'^f  « /nj>f",'  rmuIits  it  lawful  for  a  man  Ijoldin*; 
Bliares  in  nn  insolvent  i'i)nij)any  to  sell  them  to  any  one  willing 
to  btiy  them,  nn<l  in  the  nhsence  of  misrejiresentation  l)y  the 
Feller,  the  buyer  is    ai>]>:ir(ntly  without  any  niucdy  against 

l.ilM.* 

The  mere  omission  of  a  purchaser  of  iinijxity  to  disclose 
his  insolvency  to  the  vendor,  is  not  a  fraud  for  which  the  sale 
may  be  avoided.  If  no  imiuirics  are  made,  and  the  vendee 
makes  no  false  statements,  nor  resorts  to  any  artifice  or  con- 
trivance for  the  purpose  of  misleading  the  vendor,  it  is  not 
in  general  fraudulent  in  him  to  remain  silent  as  to  his  pecun- 
iarv  condition.  An  honest  though  abortive  purpose  to  con- 
tinue in  business,  and  pay  for  the  goods,  is  consistent  with  the 
vendee's  knowledge  of  his  oM-n  insolvency.*     Hut  there  may 

'  >eo  Uemfrej-  v.  Cutler,  El.  Bl.  d:  El.  887  ;    Stray  i-.  Ru&^ell.  1  EI.  d-  El.  888. 


♦Cross  r.  Peters.  1  Grecnl.  378;  Nichols  r.  Pinner,  18  N.  Y.  295 ; 
BMault  r.  Wales,  19  Mo.  36  ;  8.  c.  20  Mo.  540 ;  Mitclull  r.  "Wordcn,  20 
Barb.  253;  Iltnshaw  r.  Bryant,  4  Scam.  97. 

When  a  person,  who  knows  himself  to  be  insolvent,  by  means  of  fraiid- 
nlont  pretences  or  representations,  obtains  possession  of  ^'oods  nmler  a 
itretencc  of  purchase  with  the  intention  not  to  pay  for  them.  Init  with  the 
design  to  cheat  the  vendor  out  of  them,  a  court  of  chancery  will  set  aside 
tije  sale  if  they  have  not  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  homi  jiilt^  purchaser ; 
or  the  vendor  m;ij'  brins,'  replevin  or  trover  tor  them.  Durell  r.  Haley,  1 
Paijre,  492 ;  Lupin  r.  Marie,  2  Paige,  172 ;  Lloyd  r.  Brewster,  4  Paige,  541 ; 
Van  Cliff  r.  Fleet,  15  Johns.  147;  Allison  r.  Matthieu,  3  John.-*.  235; 
Howley  c.  Big«low.  12  Pick.  312;  Hitchcock  r.  Covill,  20  Wend.  107;  Ask 
,.  Putnam,  1  Hill.  :Kl2  ;  Root  r.  Frencii.  1.)  Wend.  570;  Zaiiriskie  r  Smith, 
13  N.  Y.  330;  Hunter  r.  Hud-^on  River  Iron  Co.,  20  Barb.  493. 

In  order  to  render  a  sale  void  on  account  of  misrepresentations  as  to 
Kolvencv,  such  a  case  must  l>e  made  out  as  would  authorize  a  jury  to  con- 
vict the  purchaser  of  obtaining  goods  under  fal.s*'  pretences.  The  means 
Ui«etl  to  «h-fraud  nui'*t  l»e  such  that  a  num  of  ordinary  prudence  would  be- 
come th«-  <lu|w  of  the  decejition.     Henshaw  r.  Bryant.  4  Scam.  37. 

A  purchase  by  a  p<Tsf)n  who  knows  himself  to  Ik-  insolvent,  and  lia.s  no 
reoaonablo  expectation  to  pay  for  tin-  goods,  is  fra\idulent.  Powell  p. 
Bradlec,  9  G.  &  J.  220:  Chaffee  c.  Fort,  2  Lan.s.  81  ;  Seliginan  r.  Kalkman, 


MTSREPRKSKNTATION.  101> 

be  circMiiiistaiiccs  midcr  wlndi  flu;  (•<iiirc;iliiicMf  of  a  iiiatcri;il 
and  sutMcii  cliaiiirr  in  the  circiiiMBtanceH  nl"  a  i.iircliaser  which 
he  has  reason  In  .'^nppDsi'  to  hu  unknown  to  a  vend(jr,  niav 
iiinount  t(.)  a  Iraud.*  A  dealer,  Ibr  inhtance,  wlio  lias  been  of 
kn(«wn  standing:,  but  has  puddeidy  failed  in  busincHs,  cannot 
go  to  those  who  were  acciuaintcd  wifji  his  former  position,  l)iit 
have  not  heard  of  liis  failurc,  and  innoeentlv  ]iun  liase  ])ro])- 
crty  on  credit.*  So,  also,  there  is  fraud  if  a  vendee  obtain 
goods  upon  credit,  witli  a  preconceived  fraudulent  design  not 
to  pay  for  tlieni.^  * 

'  Nicliols  f.  Tinner,  4  Smith  (AnuT.)  »  Brown    c.    Montgonicrv.    C    Sniifh 

2!ir>;    IJrown  v.  Montgomery,  6  Smith       (Amor.) '-'^7. 
(Amer.)287.  Mlcnnfriuin    v.    Xaylor,    10    Smith 

(AniLT.)  140. 


8  Cnl.  207  ;    Conyers  r.  Ennis,  2  Mason,  236 ;    Rowley  ;-.  Bigelow,  12  Pick. 
307 ;  contra,  Biggs  v.  Barry,  2  Curt.  259 ;  llall  v.  Xaylor,  0  Ducr,  71. 

A  contract  is  not  invalidated  liecause  one  party  is  mistaken  in  re<»ar:l 
to  the  solvency  of  the  other;  nor  is  a  mutual  mistake  as  to  the  solvency 
of  the  vendee,  sufficient.     Lupin  r.  Marie,  6  Wend.  77. 

The  sale  is  void  if  the  i)urchaser  is  insolvent  at  the  time  of  receiving 
the  good.s.     Pike  v.  "Wieting,  49  Barl).  314. 

There  is  a  very  broad  line  of  distinction,  both  in  morals  and  law,  be- 
tween the  conduct  of  one  who  gets  property  into  his  possession  with  a 
preconceived  design  never  to  pay  for  it  under  color  of  a  formal  sale 
induced  by  a  sham  promise  to  pay,  which  the  party  never  intends  to  com- 
ply with,  and  the  conduct  of  a  man  deeply  involved  in  deljt,  far,  i)crhaps, 
beyond  his  means  of  ])ayment,  and  who  struggles,  it  may  be,  and  fre- 
quently is,  against  all  rational  hope  to  sustain  liis  credit,  buys  ])roperty  on 
a  ])roniise  to  pay  for  it  on  short  time  in  order  to  raise  money  from  day  to 
daj',  to  meet  immediate  and  more  pressing  demands.  Bidault  r.  "Wales. 
20  Mo.  546. 

When  a  person  has  committed  an  open  and  notorious  act  of  insolvencv, 
it  is  his  duty  to  communicate  that  fact  to  parties  with  whom  he  has  i)ri- 
viously  dealt  liefore  he  makes  a  new  jnirchase.  and  the  violation  of  such 
duty  is  a  fraud.  :Mitchell  r.  Worden,  20  Barb.  2.';3;  Pequcno  r.  Taylor,  33 
Barb.  375  ;  Chaffee  v.  Fort,  2  Lans.  81. 

*  Henncquin  r.  Naylor,  24  X,  Y.  139  ;  Durell  »•.  Haley,  1  Paige.  492 ; 
Harris  r.  Alcock,  10  G.  &  J.  220;  Lane  i\  Robinson,  18  B.  Mon.  623; 
Buckley  v.  Artcher,  21  Barb.  585;    Mackinley  r.  McGregor,  3  "Whart.  369; 


* 


110  MISRErUKSENTATION. 

Tlio  s;um'  nilcs  as  to  falsf  jind  ilt'fri>tivo  t;t:itcincnt.><,  which 
are  appliraMo  to  contracts  bctwoon  individnals,  are  also  api)li- 
cablc  to  contracts  between  an  inilividiial  and  a  ctnnpany.  No 
misstatement  or  concealment  ol"  any  material  tact  or  circum- 
stances onj^lit  to  be  permitted  in  a  prospectus  to  invite  j)ersons 
to  become  sbarebolders  in  a  projected  com})any.  The  public, 
who  are  invited  by  a  ]irospcctus  to  join  in  any  new  adventure, 
ou^dit  to  have  the  sami-  opportunity  of  jud_Lrin.L;  of  evcrythiuf^ 
which  has  a  material  hearini^  on  its  true  character,  as  the  pro- 
moters themselves  possess.  The  promoters  of  comj^anies,  who 
invite  persons  to  take  shares  on  the  faith  of  representations 
contained  in  prospectuses,  are  bound  to  state  everything  with 
strict  and  scrupulous  accuracy,  and  not  only  to  abstain  from 
statinir  as  a  fact  that  whieh  is  not  so,  but  to  omit  no  one  fact 
within  their  knowledge,  the  existence  of  which  might  in  any 
way  atiect  the  nature,  or  extent,  or  quality  of  the  privilege  or 
advantage  which  the  prospectus  holds  out  as  an  inducement  to 
take  shares.  It  cannot  ])e  too  strongly  pressed  upon  those 
who,  having  projected  an  imdertaking,  are  desirous  of  obtain- 
ing the  co-operation  of  persons  who  have  no  other  information 
on  the  subject  than  that  which  they  choose  to  convey,  that  the 
utmost  candor  and  honesty  ought  to  characterize  their  pub- 
lished statements.*  It  is  not  merely  by  one  or  two  statements 
in  the  prospectus  wliicli  are  nut  borne  out  by  the  tacts,  that 

'  New   Hriinswick,  Ac.  Unilway  To.  Kisch,  L.  R.  2  App.  Ca.  113.  114.     See 

f.  Mt«r!;fiiil;Ci'.   1   I>r.  «t  Sni.  :jh1,":{H2  ;  Ktiit     r.    Frooliolcl    l.nud    and    Rriok- 

Uo    U.m-hh     KivcT    silver    Miniii'.;   ('<>.,  iiiiikinf;  Co.,  L.  K.  4  lui.  .'.'.»'.';    HciuI.t- 

Smiilt'M  (":»««',    L    K.   2  <'li.   App.  Wi;  hoii  i:  Lacon.  L.  U.  r.  K<i  liO'J ;  L'hcstor 

Ccutral    i::iilway   <'o.    of    Vfuzuela    v.  v.  Spargo,  IG  W.  U.  57(i. 


eontrn.   IJuckcntoss  r.  S|>cirluT  31  Pcnn.  321;    Smith  r.  Smitli.  21  Pcnii. 

:JC7. 

Tl«c  intention  never  t<»  pay  for  j^oods  nuiy  he  evidenced  l)y  a  resale  of 
theui  at  M  Kacrllicc,  an  aHsij^nnient  in  in>«>lveney.  or  to  a  favored  creditor, 
or  other  eireum^tanres.  Ilidault  r,.  Wales,  1»  Mo.  :16;  Ilenncquin  v.  Nay- 
lor,  21  N.  Y.  la!';  Maekinley  c.  McOrcgor,  3  Whart.  300. 


MISUKrUKSKNTATIOX.  Ill 

the  in,itt(M"  (lui^'lit  to  he  fric(l,  Imt  hj  the  comltiiicd  effect  of 
tliciii  all,  producing  a  result  wliicli  would  luive  misled  any  per- 
son who  took  shares  on  the  faith  of  the  i)ros])('ctus.'  Thoni,di 
certain  statements  or  su])j)rc'ssioiis  standing  alone,  mi^ht  not 
be  suflieient  ground  to  i^ivc  a  man  a  i-ii^ht  to  have  a  transac- 
tion set  aside,  yet  another  part  (»t'  the  case  may  lead  to  a 
(liferent  conclusion,  and  reflect  upou  the  general  fairness  of 
the  ])ros{)ectus,  even  in  those  ])articnlars.^  That  a  man,  who 
was  induced  to  take  shares  by  misrepresentation  or  conceal- 
ment, was  actually  a  mend)er  of  the  comj)any  at  the  tin>e,  is 
immaterial;  but  it  is  material  that  to  relieve  him  from  the 
transaction  would  prejudice  the  interests  of  an  innocent  share- 
liolder  who  had  ac(]uircd  them  after  he  ]ia<l  l)ecome  a  share- 
holder.^ 

Those  who,  having  a  duty  to  perform,  represent  to  those 
who  arc  interested  in  the  ])erf(jrmance  of  it,  that  it  has  been 
performed,  make  themselves  responsible  for  all  the  conse- 
quences of  the  non-performance.* 

The  false  and  fraudulent  representations  of  an  agent,  when 
acting  within  the  scoi)e  of  his  authority,  bind  the  principal.' 
A  man  cannot  take  any  benefit  under  false  and  fi-auduleiit  rep- 
resentation made  by  his  agent,  although  he  may  have  been  no 
party   to   the  representations,  and  may   not   liave   distinctly 

authorized  them.^*     In  respect  of  the  liability  of  a  princi})al 
t 

*  Central  Riiilwav  Co.  of  Venezuela  «'.       Hiclies.    10    C.    B.    104;    Whoclt<in   j- 
Kisch,  L.  U.  2  App.  Ca.  125.  Ilnnlistj'  8  E.  <t  B.  2:52.  260;    Udell  v. 

'  ]h.  117.  Atherton.  7  H.  <fc  N.  173. 

»  Western  Bank  of  Scotland  V.  A<ldie,  *  Nicoll's  Case,   3  D.  «t  J.  387,  437, 

L.  R.  1  Sc.  App.  Ca.  103.  per  Turner,  L.  J.;    Udell   r.  Atherton,' 

*  Blair  v.   Bromley,   2  Ph.    3Gi>,  y)er  7   II.   (t  N.    172,  ;>er  rollock,  C.  B,  <t 
Lord  Cottenhain.  Wilde,  J.  ;    New  Brunswick,  Ac.,  liail- 

»  Wibon  V.  Fuller,  3  Q.  B.  77  ;    Blair       way  Co.  v.  Conyheiirc,  9  II.  L.  714,  720, 
)■.    Bromley,    2  I'b.    350;     Coleman  v.      per  Lord  Wastbury,  il/.  IS'J ;  per  Lord 


♦ElwcU  V.  Chamberlain,  31  N.  Y.  Gil;  Mitrhell  v.  Minis.  8  Tex.  6; 
Mundorf  r.  Wickcrsham,  H'.i  Pcnn.  87;  Bennett  ,-.  .Jud><)n,  21  X.  Y.  238- 
Lobdell  r.  Baker,  1  Met.  11)3;    Lawrence  r.  Hand,  23  Mi>.-<.  105;    Concord 


ir_>  misk::i'1ii:s:;ntati()N'. 

for  tlu'  acts  of  his  ai^oiit,  ilono  in  the  course  of  his  master's 
business,  and  for  liis  master's  benefit,  no  sensiblo  distinction 
ean  be  tlraun  bi-tweeii  the  ease  of  fraud  and  any  oihi-r  wroiiir.* 
A  mail  caiiMot  ad.)|>t  and  take  the  bciietit  of  a  eontraet 
entered  into  by  his  airent,  and  repudiate  the  fraud  on  whieli  it 
was  built.  If  the  ai^'ent,  at  tlie  time  of  the  eontraet,  makes 
anv  representation  or  deehiration  toueliinu:  the  suliject-mattcr, 
it  is  the  representation  and  deehiration  of  the;  principal.  The 
statements  of  the  agent  which  are  involved  in  the  contract,  as 
its  foundation  or  inducement,  arc  in  law  the  statements  of  the 
princijial.  The  principal  caiuutt  separate  the  contract  itself 
from  that  by  wliich  it  was  induced.  lie  must  adopt  the  whole 
contract,  including,'  the  statements  and  representations  which 
induced  it,  or  must  repudiate  the  contract  altoijether.'  It 
would  be  inconsistent  with  natural  justice,  to  i)ermit  a  man  to 
retain  property  ac<piired  throUi,di  the  medium  of  false  repre- 
sentations made  by  his  a-^ent,  alth<»Ui:h  he  was  no  party  to 
them,   or  di-l    not  authorize  them.^*      If  an  agent  employs 


Cranworth.       Sec    Arclibold    v.    Lord  pn-  Tollock.  C.  B.,  <t  Wil.lo.  B. ;  ex-parle 

Hovvth    L.  R.  Ir.  2  C  L.  <>08 ;    but  see  Gin:,'tr.  5  Ir.  Cli.  IT  J  ;   Hiirwick  >:  Ensj- 

\Vilde  V    Gib-<(in,    1    II.    L.  CO.).      See,  lish  Joint  Stock   Himk.    L.  JJ.  '2  K.\i-h. 

however    Su"-.    LI'.   Cll;    Uevnell   v.  2C5.     Soo  Arclibold  r.  Lonl  Howth,  L. 

Sprve.    1   1>.  "m.  «k  (i.  <'S4.  j,rr' IWi^ht  U.  Ir.   2  (".  L.  •'.itS;    lomp.  Solomon   v. 

Brii"  C-'    L.  J.,  coniiiiunting  on  Wilde  c.  Iloiiywooil,  12  W.  11.  .'.72. 
^...      '  *  New    I'.niii.swiek,   itc,  Co.  r.  Cony- 

'"'uarwick    »•.    En;;lisb    Joint    Stock  bcnre. '.•  11.  L.  711;    Western   Hnuk  of 

Bank    L   U    2  K.\eb."^2il.").     See   Hern  v.  Scolluntl  r.  Addle.  L.  11.  1  Se.  Ap^  ("a. 

^•icb<iils  1  Salk.  2.S'...  ir>y;    Oakes  ...  Turquaud,  L.  U.  2  App. 

»  rdell   f.  Atberton,   7    II.  it  N.  181.  Ca.  325. 


Bink  T.  Grc"},',  14  N-  H.  :V.',\  ;  Bowers  p.  .Icdui-^on.  10  Smcd.  A  Miir.  109; 
MuBon  r.  Cr(^?>y,  1  Woo.l  &  Min.  :M2  ;  Morton  r.  Scull,  2:1  Ark.  2S'J;  Gris- 
wobl  r.  Haven,  25  N.  Y.  .ly,').    Graves  p.  Spier,  58  Barb.  ;MS). 

A  rejin-sentution  by  an  a^jent  that  a  certain  fiurt  h  not  known  to  him, 
ifl  not  a  «lenial  of  the  exiHtcnre  of  the  fact  or  of  tiie  knowledj^e  of  his 
principal  conceniini;  it.     ('..ddin^^ton  r  Go.blanl,  10  <5ray,  4:»0. 

♦  Fit/^-iramons  r.  Jonlin.  '21  Vt.  120;  Ven/.ie  r.  Williams,  H  IT..w.  i:U; 
Crocker  c.  Lewis,  a  Bumncr,  b;   Bowers  c.  JohnMiii,  10  Smcd.  &  ^lar.  IGU; 


MISREPRESENTATION.  1 1  .'5 

anollier  person  to  make  rcpreseiitatioiifi,  it  is  tlie  Bamc  as  if  the- 
representations  hml  hi-cn  inadL-  \>y  liiui.' 

Til  Cornf'oot  v.  Fowke,"  a  man  had  cm])l(»ye<l  an  a;;unt  lor 
the  sile  of  ]»roj)urty,  wlio  in  the  eoursu  of  the  treaty  fur  sale 
made  material  rei)resentations  respecting  the  property,  whieli 
lie  hoiiotly  hclicved  to  he  true,  thoiii,di  they  were  i'alse  in  fact 
and  false  to  the  ki'.uwled^e  of  the  j»rineii»al ;  there  hein^, 
however,  no  evidence  to  show  a  frainluleiit  jMii'pose  on  tin; 
part  of  the  i)rincipal,  it  was  held  that  fraud  and  covin  coid<I 
not  be  pleaded  in  bar  to  an  action  by  him  on  the  contract.  It 
was  a<linitted,  In^wever,  in  the  jud^'inent  that  if  a  j)riMeij)al 
with  knowledge  of  a  fact  material  to  the  enjoyment  of  proj>- 
erty  employs  an  agent,  whom  he  knows  to  be  ignorant  of 
that  feet  for  the  purpose  of  concealing  it,  he  could  not 
be  permitted  to  avail  himself  of  that  concealment.  Lord 
Abinger,  C.  !>.,  differed  from  the  m  .jority  of  the  court,  being 
of  opinion  that  if  a  principal  employs  an  agent  to  sell  prop- 
erty, and  such  agent  in  the  course  of  his  employment  makes 
false  representations  j-especting  the  property,  he  cannot  take 
advantage  of  a  contract  induced  by  such  representations, 
whether  the  agent  was  authorized  by  him  or  not  to  make  the 
representations. 

Cornfoot  v.  Fowkc  has  been  the  subject  of  much  comment. 
It  has  been  explained  by  Lord  Cran worth,  in  Xational  Ex- 
change Company  v.  Drew,^  and  IJartlett  v.  Salmon/  and  by 
"Willes,  J.,  in  Burv.-ick  v.  English  Joint  Stock  Bank,^  as  hav- 
ing turned  on  a  point  of  pleading.     Lord  St.  Leonards  ac- 


'  Western  Bank  of  Scotland  v.  Addie,  '  2  Mncq.  108. 

L.  R.  1  Sc.  Ap.  159.  *  <•.  I).  M.  it  G.  89. 

n  M.  d:  W.  358.  *  L.  U.  2  Exch.  262. 


Hunt  V.  :Moorc,  2  Barr,  105  ;  Hunter  v.  Hudson  Riv.  Iron  Co.  20  Barb.  493 ; 
Franklin  r.  Elzell,  1  Sneed,  497. 


114  MlSUlCrUKSENTATION. 

i-c'j»U>cl  the  explauution,  but  appaivntly  witli  n«liu-t;uioe,  in 
Nati»<iial  Kxcliaiiixe  Company  v.  Drew.'  He  stated  it  to  be 
his  opiniiin  that  tlie  hiw  will  reacli  the  ease  of  a  person  80 
avjiilin:;  hiniself  of  the  ini.srei)resentations  of  his  i»wn  agent, 
who  niiirht  be  iijnorant  of  a  faet  material  to  tlie  enjoyment  of 
the  property,  altlum^h  the  i)rin(ii)al  himself  knew  it,  and  em- 
ployed the  au;ent  in  order  to  avoid  makiiii,'  a  direi-t  representa- 
tion to  the  eoutrary.  lie  .-;iid  that  he  would  i,'o  farther,  and 
would  hold  that  although  the  representation  was  not  fraudulent, 
the  airent  not  knowing,'  it  was  false,  yet  that  as  it  in  fact  was  false, 
and  false  to  the  kn(.wle<li;e  of  the  ])rineipal,  although  the  agent 
did  not  know  it,  it  ou:,dit  to  vitiate  the  contract.'  So  also  in 
Wheelton  v.  llardisty,^'  Lord  Campbell  said  that  AVestminster 
Hall  was  in  favor  of  the  opinion  of  Lord  Abinger.  In  a  care- 
fully considered  American  case,  Fitzsimmons  v.  Joslin,*  Cornfoot 
r.  Fowke  was  pronounced  to  be  bad  hiw.'  The  latest  aiithor- 
itv  on  the  subject  is  a  dictum  of  Lord  Kingsdown,  in  Bristow 
('.  Whitiiiore  ;'  "If  an  agent,"  he  said,"  "  makes  a  contract  on 
behalf  of  his  principal,  whether  with  or  without  authority,  the 
principal  cannot  at  once  ap])robate  and  reprobate  it.  lie  must 
adoi)t  it  altogether  or  not  at  all.  He  cannot  at  the  same  time 
take  the  benefits  which  it  confers  and  repudiate  the  obligations 
which  it  imj>oses."   * 

'2Mnrn.ll4.  '  0  II.  L.  41«. 

1  //,   lie.  '  bfo  Kx-i-'irt,-  (Jint^cr,  ft  Ir.  Cli.  171. 

'8  K  A  H.  270.  Soo,  also,  Sui;.  L.  l*.  Otl  ;    Uoyrn-ll  r. 

♦'21  Vi-nii.  (.Vmer.)  129.  S].iyc.    1    I>.   .M.    .t  (J.  C.SH. /),;," Knight 

*  Sec    IJrnnett    v.  JuJhou,    7   Srailh       I'-iik-.-,  K.  .1. ;    but  see  Wilde  «.  Gibson. 

(ATncT.)2:{s.  1  11.  h.  f.o:.. 
•9  11.  L.  118. 


*  lloii^'li  r.  Uichnrdson,  3  Story,  (589;  Hcmk-rson  v.  Ilailroail  Co.  17  Tix. 
SCO ;  Crump  r.  U.  B.  Mining  Co.  7  Gratt.  M'^. 

A  jjiirty  ran  not  aviii!  liiin>^uir<)r  nn  advantnirc  tliat  has  IxJin  obtained 
throui,'h  tbi;  njisnprcst-nt.ition  ol  a  tliinl  pLrsf)ii.  aitlioiijxli  niich  third  pcr- 
Hon  is  not  lii«  a}.?cnt.  Hunt  r.  .Moore,  2  IJarr.  10.");  Fit/.-iinnions  r.  Joslin, 
21  Vt.  129. 


MISREPRESENTATION.  1  ir> 

A  partiierslii|>  linn  is  hoiind  hy  lalso  and  iVaiiiliilent  rep- 
rcsentulidii.s  inadu  \>y  any  tA'  its  iiii'imIxts  wliilst  actiii;^  within 
the  scope  uikI  limits  of  hi.n  authority  and  haviii<^  rot'ereiico  to 
the  proper  business  of  the  lirni/  hut  is  nut  bound  l)y  state- 
ments iMa<le  by  liini  us  to  his  authority  to  do  tiiat  wliich 
the  nature  of  the  business  of  tlie  linn  does  not  impliedly 
warrant.'* 

A  company  or  corporation  is  as  much  bound  by  the  false 
and  fraudulent  representations  of  its  authorized  agents  as  an 
individual.  If  the  directors  of  a  company  in  tlie  course  of 
managing  its  afiaii's,  or  in  the  course  of  the  business  which  it 
is  their  duty  to  transact  induce  a  man  ])y  false  or  fraudulent 
misrepresentations  to  enter  into  a  contract  for  the  benefit  of 
the  company,  the  company  is  bound,  and  can  no  more  re- 
pudiate the  fraudulent  conduct  of  its  agents  than  an  individual 
can.*"  A  company  cannot  retain  any  benefit  which  it  may 
have  obtained  through  the  fraudulent  representations  of  its 

•  Rnpp  i:  Latham,  2  B.  .t  Aid.  70.5;  .")  II.  L.  8r, ;    Nation.il  Excliani^c  Co.  ». 

Lovcll   I',   llirks,  2   Y.    &  C.   4r.,  481;  Drew,    2   Macij     12.5,    per    Lord    Cran- 

Blair  ?-.  Bromluv,  5  Ha.  .557,  2  I'h.  .".54  ;  wortli;    Mcii.x  Ivxccutors'  ('a.«e,  2  I).  M. 

■\Vickliain  r.  Wifkliam.  2  K.  <k  J.  478.  A  G.  .522;  Nicoll'.s  Ca-sp,  3  1).  tt  J.  387, 

^  Kx-i>nrtc  Agace.  2  Co.x,  312.  437  ;   New  Brunswick,  (fcc.  Kail  way  C'<>. 

'  Burnes    v.   I'ennell,   2    H.  L.    407;  v.  Conybeare,  9  IL  L.  737,  per  Lord 

Ranger  v.  Great  Western  Railway  Co.  Cranworlb. 


*  Henderson  r.  Railroad  Co.  17  Tex.  580 ;  Litchfield  Bank  r.  Peck,  29 
Ct.  384  ;  Criimp  v.  U.  S.  Mining  Co.  7  Gratt.  352 ;  East  Tenn.  R.  R.  Co.  r. 
Gammon,  5  Snecd,  5G7 ;  Hester  v.  Mempliis,  &c..  R.  R.  Co.  32  Miss.  378; 
River  v.  Plankroad  Co.  30  Ala.  92;  New  Orleans,  &c.,  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Wil- 
liams, 10  La.  Ann.  315. 

Where  representations  made  by  an  atrent  to  obtain  subscriptions  are  a 
part  of  a  scheme  of  fraud  participated  in  by  the  officers  authorized  to 
manage  its  affairs;  or  where  they  are  such  as  the  agent  may  reasonably  be 
presumed  by  the  subscriber  to  have  the  authority  of  the  corporation  to 
make,  his  representations  are  relevant  to  show  the  fraud  by  means  of 
Avhieh  the  subscription  was  procured.  But  where  there  is  no  rensonable 
presumption  of  authority,  and  no  actual  authority,  the  corporation  will  not 
be  prejudiced  by  the  unauthorized  acts  of  the  agent.  Custar  c.  Titusvillo 
Water  &  Gas  Co.  03  Penn.  381. 


IIG  MISUKrRKSENTATlON. 

ai^u'Ut.s  but  is  re>i>on.sil)lo  to  tin.'  rxtciit  to  whieh  it  may  liavo 
profited  fiHuii  such  ronresetitations.* 

Till'  rule  that  a  coiiii>:iny  cannot  ivtain  any  l»cnc'lit  wliich  it 
may  havo  obtained  tlironi!:h  the  false  and  tVandnlent  represen- 
tations of  its  ai^ents,  ai)plies  to  the  case  of  a  m.-niber  of  tlie 
company,  who  wjis  induced  by  such  represeiitatioiia  to  take 
additional  shares.' 

A  principal,  however,  is  not  bouinl  by  tho  false  and  fraud- 
ulent rei)resentations  of  his  agent,  unless  the  agent  be  acting 
within  the  sc:)pe  of  his  authority.'  A  joint-stock  company, 
for  instance,  is  not  bound  by  the  statements  of  one  of  its  mem- 
bers, unless  he  is  also  the  agent  of  the  coinpany,  and  unless 
liis  business  be  to  make  statements  on  its  behalf.*  Nor  is  a 
comi>any  bound  by  the  statements  of  one  of  the  directors,  or 
of  its  manager,  or  secretary,  or  of  a  clerk,  if  he  is  not  singly 
an  agent  of  the  company.'  The  rule  that  companies  arc  bound 
by  the  misrepresentations  of  the  directors  applies  only  to  the 
case  of  directors  acting  as  a  body.^ 

Referees  for  information  respecting  a  life  to  be  assured  are 
not  thereby  constituted  tlie  agents  of  the  insured.  If  their 
information  is  false  and  fraudulent,  but  not  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  assured,  the  insurer  is  not  entitled  to  avoid  the  j)olicy 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  induced  l)y  the  fraud  of  the  agent 
of  the  insured.' 


•  WesttTii  Hnnk  of  Scotland  •-.  Addio,  lUilway  <-"o.  r.  Conyhcnro.  'J  II.  L.711. 
L.   R.    1    Sr.    Ajip.  ("a.    157;    Ouki's  v.  See  Harry  ''.  Trosskoy,  "2  J.  tt  M.  U7. 
Tunjuiind,  L.  11.  2  \w.  ('«•  H'-'> ;    ll«'n-  *  Barnes  v.  IV-nnell,  '2  II.  L.  4'J7. 
dt-rs-in  r.  Lncon,  I...  li.  r»  K(j.  'itll.     See  '  Holt's  ('use,   22   licnv.  48;    Ayre's 
liarrv  «•■  Cronskt-v,  2  .1.  «t  II.  1.  fuse.   2.'>   Heav.  h\'-l ;    (iibson's   Case,  2 

'  \Vest4Tn  Hank  of  Scotland  v.  Addie,  1>.    «t  .1.  27.');    Nicoll's   I'aHL-,   U  I).  «k  .F. 

L.  11.  1  Sc.  Api".  ("a.  Ift.'i.  3H7:   Kzpaitr  Krowd.  '.W  L.  .I.Ch.  ;J22; 

•  Hcrnard's  <  as.-.  6  I)<';j.  <t  S.  2H:{;  Woliuston'.s  ("aso. -1  I>.  ct  .1.  l.-J?. 
Ayre'H  ("a-w,  2.'i  licav.  .M:t;  lUirne.t  v.  "  Nio<>li'!«  Case,  ;j  I),  .fc  J.  ;{S7,  440. 
renmll.  2  II.  L.  4'.>7;  Nicoll'H  Cam-,  .'{  See  National  Kxrlianijo  Co.  »'.  Drew,  24 
D.  A  J.  3H7.  4''I7  ;  WollaHton'H  Ca.Hc,  4  Dit.  of  ("onrt  of  Si'ssion.  'id  Herit-.i,  p.  1. 
d!  a  J.  4:J7;  Att.-<ien.  t-.  Hnt,'i;'<.  1  '  Whcelton  v.  llurdisty,  H  E.  <&  B. 
Jur.  N.  S.  lOil  ;  New  liruuHwick,  Ac,  232. 


MISUKPRESENTATIOX.  117 

An  n^Piit  wliORc  autliurify  is  unknown  c.innot  hind  liirt 
principal  by  niisn-prescntin^  the  authority  (•<)utV'nv<l.' 

Although  a  jtiincii»al  is  not  bound  l;y  tliu  KtatenicntH  of  an 
a^cnt  wlu'u  nut  actini;  witliin  tlio  scope  of  liis  authority,  tlie 
case  is  (lillcrcut  if  a  princij)al  knows  that  a  luau  is  dcalin*;  witli 
his  agent  uu(h'r  the  belief  that  all  statements  made  by  the 
agent  are  warrantril  by  tlu'  principal,  and  so  knowing,  allows 
him  to  expend  moneys  in  that  behalf  A  court  of  ecpiity  will 
not  afterwards  allow  the  principal  to  set  up  the  want  of  author- 
ity of  the  agent.  The  kiujwledgc  must,  however,  be  brought 
home  to  the  principal.'^ 

In  BrockwcH's  Case,^  Kindersley,  V.-C,  held  that  if  the 
directors  of  a  company  in  the  exercise  of  their  ordinary  func- 
tions make  a  false  report  to  the  company,  who  adopt  it,  and 
the  report  finds  its  M'ay  into  the  liands  of  a  man  -who  takes 
shares  on  the  faith  of  it,  he  could  not  he  held  liable.*  The 
authority  of  the  case  has  been,  on  two  occasions,^  questioned 
by  Lord  Chelmsford.®  He  has  expre.-scd  himself  as  of  opinion 
that  a  company  is  not  bound  l)y  false  statements  contained  in 
reports  of  the  directors  of  the  company,  which  have  been 
adopted  at  a  general  meeting  l>ut  do  not  aliect  to  give  any 
more  knowledge  than  what  was  contained  in  the  directors' 
report;  and  wdiich,  although  they  have  been  published  and 
have  got  into  the  hands  of  the  public,  have  not  been  indus- 
triously circulated  by  the  company.  The  distinction,  however, 
suggested  and  takt-n  by  his  Lordship  does  not  seem  sound  law. 
In  two  late  cases,'^  Kindersley,  V.-C,  said  that  he  adhered  to 
the  opinion  he  had  expressed  in  BrockwelFs  Case  ;  and  the 
weight  of  authorities  is  in  lavor  of  the  opinion  of  his  Ilonor.^ 

'  story  on  Ap;pncy-  Urunswick,  etc.,  Railway  Co.  v.  Conj-- 

Mlninsilcii   v.   Dyson,  L.   R.   1   A\>\>.  benrc,  9  H.  L.  7-10. 

Ca.  129.  /«<>•  Lord  Cranworlh.  '  Sec,  also,  Mixer's  Casc.4  D.  «t  J.  583. 

'  1  Drew. '2<>.'i.  'Worth's  Case,  4   Drew,   r).'12 ;    Bnr- 

*  See  ^lational  Exchange  Co.  c.  Drew,  rett's  Case,  2  Dr.   <k  Sax.  415,  5  >'.  R. 

2  Macq.  lu;J.  4<'.(i. 

'  Nicoll'a  Case,  3  D.  «t  J.  427;   New  '  See  National  Exchange  Co.  f.  Drew, 


118  MISRErilKSKNTATION. 

The  ^I'Ui'ral  interests  of  society  deiiiaiul  tliat,  ft5  between  an 
innocent  company  on  tlic  one  liand  and  an  innocerit  individual 
detrauiled  \>y  the  company  on  the  »ither,  mi-representations  by 
the  directors  of  a  cdmpaiiy  sliall  himl  the  eoinpaiiy,  altliougli 
the  shareh(ddcrs  may  be  ii^norant  of  tlie  representations  and  of 
their  falseliood.'  It  may  be  said  tliat  the  rej)orts  (»f  directors 
arc  not  made  fn/  the  company,  but  to  tlie  company  ;  but  the 
nruuMunt  tliou^h  ])lausiblc  is  not  souikK  The  reports  of 
directors  thoupjh  addressed  to  the  shareliolders  are  made  under 
such  circumstances  tliat  what  they  so  report  is  known,  and  in- 
tended to  be  known,  not  only  to  the  shareholders,  but  to  all 
persons  who  may  be  minded  to  be  shareholders  just  the  samo 
as  if  they  were  published  to  the  worM  :  and  the  exigencies  of 
mankind  re(|uire  that  reports  so  made  and  circulated  should 
be  deemed  to  be  the  reports  of  the  company.''  The  case  be- 
comes all  the  stronger,  if  the  reports  of  directors  have  been 
adopted  at  a  general  meeting  of  the  shareholders.  After 
adoption  a  report  is  the  act  of  the  com])any  aiul  not  simply  of 
the  directors.^  If  after  adoption  a  report  is  industriously  cir- 
culated, misstatements  contained  in  it  must  be  taken  to  be 
made  with  the  authority  of  the  company.* 

The  j)rincij>le  which  treats  non-disclosure  as  e»[uivalent  to 
fraud,  when  the  circumstances  impose  a  duty  tliat  disclosure 
should  be  made,  obtains  specially  in  respect  to  policies  of 
assurance.  Tlie  contract  of  assurance  being  essentially  a  con- 
tract of  good  faith,  inasmuch  as  the  risk  which  the  insurer  un- 
dertakes can  only  be  learnt  from  the  representations  of  the 
])arty  ]>roposing  the  insurance,  courts  of  justice  ])rocccd  ujxm 
a  doctrine  stri<-tly  analogous  to  that   of  the    IJoiiian   law,  and 

rj5.  /vr  LopI  Crunwiirtli.  iV».  11:i,  /kt  '  Nnfumnl    Kxclinn<;(»  Co.  v.  Drew,  2 

I^)^^^  St.  \A-imnriU;    Nicoll's  Cobc,  »  D.       M«irq.  I 'J.%. //<•/•  L«ird  «  mnwortli. 
<k  .1.  :!H7,  f,rr  Tiirn«T,  L.  J.  *  *  /''•  ••••'<.  pf  I^'Ttl  St.  LonnnnJs. 

'  Natiotiiil   Exclion^o  Co.  v.  Drew,  'i  *  XfW    Uninswiok.    Ac,    liiiilway   i-. 

Mac<i.  120.  I'onylx'Hn'.  1»  11.  1..  711.     Sec  linrrctl'u 

Ca«i\  '-!  l)r.  ik  Sm.  115. 


mishepreskntation.  119 

rc'icarcl  non-disclosure  as  latal   to  the  validity  of  tlic;  traii.sac- 
ti(»n.*  * 

The  rule  wifli  respect  to  the  duty  of  disclosure  applies  with 
peculiar  force  in  the  case  of  ])olicies  of  marine  insurance. 
The  validity  of  a  contract  of  marine  insurance  bein^'  condi- 
tional upon  the  completeness,  the  truth,  and  the  accuracy  of 
the  representations  of  the  party  proposini,'  the  insurance  as  to 
the  risk,  he  is  bound  to  make  known  to  the  underwriter  every- 
thing,' within  his  knowlcdi^^e  which  is  of  a  nature  to  increase 
the  risk  which  he  is  askeil  to  undertake.  There  are  many 
matters  as  to  which  he  may  be  innocently  silent.  He  is  not 
Itound  to  mention  focts  and  circumstances  whicli  are  witliin 
the  ordinary  professional  knowledge  of  an  underwriter :  nor 
is  he  bound  to  communicate  things  which  are  well  known  to 
both  parties,  or  which  he  is  warranted  in  assuming  to  be 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  party  who  is  asked  to  undertake 
the  risk  ;  as,  for  instance,  where  a  fact  is  one  of  puljlic  noto- 
riety, as  of  war,  or  where  it  is  a  matter  of  inference  and  the 
materials  for  forming  a  judgment  are  common  to  both  parties. 
But  he  is  bound  to  communicate  every  fact  which  he  is  not 
entitled  to  assume  to  be  in  the  knowledge  of  the  underwriter. 
He  may  not,  however,  speculate  as  to  what  may  or  may  not  be 
in  the  mind  of  the  underwriter,  or  as  to  what  may  or  may  not 
be  brought  to  his  mind  by  the  particulars  disclosed  to  him. 
It  is  not  enough  that  the  underwriter  be  furnished  with  mate- 
rials from  which  he  may,  by  a  course  of  reasoning  and  effort 
of  memory,  see  the  extent  of  the  risk.     The  matter  must  not 

'Carter    v.   Boelim,    3   Burr.    lOUO  ;  Linik'nau  i'.  Desboroutjh,  8  B.  »fc  C.  586. 


*  Clark  r.  !M:in.  Ins.  Co.  8  How.  235 ;  Fletcher  c.  Coin mnn wealth  Ins. 
Co.  18  Pick.  41!) ;  "Walclen  r.  Louisiana  Ins.  Co.  12  La.  liJ-i  ;  N.  Y.  Bowery 
lus.  Co.  V.  N.  Y.  lus.  Co.  17  Wend.  359. 


1  JO  MISREPRESENTATION. 

lie  \c\\  to  s|>L'Cul!iti«Mi  or  jxradventuro.  If  tlic  i)articuliir8  fur- 
nitilu'd  to  the  umlcrwriti-r  fall  pliort  of  what  the  i»arty  i)ropo8- 
ing  the  insurance  is  boiiml  to  coinimniicatc,  tliu  contract  is 
vitiated,  it  is  iuiinateriai  wlutiier  the  onii»i(>ii  to  (■••imiiuni- 
cnte  a  niatorial  fact  has  arisen  from  intention,  or  inditferencc, 
or  mistake,  or  fn»m  it  not  bcimx  ])rcsent  to  the  mind  of  the 
jtart}'  proposing  the  insurance  that  the  fact  was  one  which 
ought  to  liavc  been  disclosed,^  Tiie  insurer  is  liound  to  com- 
municate not  onlv  every  material  fact  of  which  he  has  actual 
knowledge,  but  every  material  fact  of  which  he  ought  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  business  to  liave  knowledge,  and  must  take 
all  necessary  measures  by  the  employment  of  comi)etent  and 
honest  agents  to  obtain  througli  the  ordinary  channels  of  intel- 
liirence  in  use  in  the  mercantile  world  all  due  information  as  to 
the  snbject-nnUtcr  of  the  insurance.  If  by  the  fraiul  or  negli- 
gence of  liis  agent  the  party  proposing  the  insurance  is  kept  in 
ignorance  of  a  fact  material  to  tlie  risk,  and  through  such  neg- 
ligence fails  to  disclose  it,  the  contract  is  vitiated.'^  An  under- 
writer may,  however,  in  any  ]>articular  case  limit  the  right  of 
full  disclosure  which  he  has  by  law  to  that  of  being  informed 
of  what  is  in  the  knowledge  of  the  party  proposing  the  insur- 
ance, not  only  as  to  its  existence  in  point  of  fact,  but  also  to  its 
materiality.' 

It  was  fomierly  considered  that  policies  of  assurance  on 
lives,  like  policies  of  insurance  on  8hi])S,  were  nuide  condition- 
ally up(»n  the  tnith  or  completeness  of  the  representations 
respecting  the  risk,  and  that  misrepresentation  or  concealment 
of  a  material  fact,  although  not  fraudiilrnt,  vitiated  the  i>olicy.* 
r.ut  it  is  now  di'ttTMiini'd  that  such  is  not  the  case.  Tiie  assured 
is  alwavs  bound   not  only  to  make  a  true  answer  to   the  «pies- 

'  CorUT    »•.    Ilochin,    r>    I5urr.    1  !•'>.'> ;  '  Joni'n  i'.  rrovinciBl  Insurnncc  Co.  3 

IinU-«  V.  Hewitt,  L.  IC.  2  ^  H.  :.■.•:.,  Oor..  C.  H.  N.  S.  Rrt. 

Q^^(^  ftlo  *  Liruli-iinii  v.  l)cst)<>r<mi;li,  H  H.  «fe  C. 

*  Proudfoot  V.  Montffioro,  L.  U.  '2  Q.  BSt'';  Joih-h  i-.  rruvincinl  iuBunincc  Co. 

]{.  511.  3  C.  li.  N.  S.  BO. 


^IISUKPRKSKNTATIoN.  121 

tions  ])Ut  to  liiiii,  Kill  to  diKcIoHU  sititiit:iiu'(iii>ly  any  I'act  cxclii- 
sivt'Iy  witliiii  Ill's  k'liDwled^o,  wliicli  it  is  iii.itni;il  I'ur  tliu 
insurer  to  know.  Ihit  it  i.s  not  ;iii  iiii]>li(<l  cKiiditi-in  ot'  the 
vuliility  of  tlie  policy  that  tlic  insured  should  make  a  coiuplete 
and  true  representation  respectiiif]^  the  lite  proposed  for  insur- 
ance. Such  coiidilidii,  if  iiifi'uded,  must  Itc  made  a  matti-r  for 
express  stipulation.  It'  there  he  no  wan-anty  or  ('<»ndition  on 
the  part  of  the  i)arty  proposin<^  the  insurance,  the  insurer  is 
Ruhject  to  all  risks,  unless  he  cjiii  show  u  fraudulent  conceal- 
ment or  niisrei)resentation,  or  a  non-communication  of  mate- 
rial i'acts  known  to  thr  assuivd.*  It  is,  however,  an  iiiii)lied 
condition  that  the  ])erson  whose  life  is  assured  is  alive  at  the 
time  of  making  the  policy.  The  ])olicy  is  void  if  the  })ersou 
whose  life  is  assured  was  dead  at  the  date  of  the  policy,  though 
neither  party  to  the  policy  was  aware  of  his  death.^  If  there 
is  a  })roviso  that  the  l>olicy  shall  not  he  disputed  on  the  ground 
uf  merely  untrue  statements,  iiot  fraudulently  made,  a  misrep- 
resentation or  concealment  undesignedly  made  does  not  avoid 
the  policy.'  An  insurer  may  limit  his  right  to  that  of  being 
infoi-med  of  what  is  in  the  knowledge  of  the  party  proposing 
the  insurance,  not  only  as  to  its  existence  in  poijit  of  tact,  hut 
also  as  to  its  materiality.^ 

Policies  of  insurance  against  fire  are  made  upon  the  im- 
plied condition  that  the  description  of  the  property  inserted  in 
the  policy  is  true  at  the  time  of  making  the  policy;^  and  there 
is  an  inqdied  condition  that  the  property  shall  not  be  altered 
during  the  term  for  which  it  is  insured,  so  as  to  increase  the 
lisk."     In  eftecting  an  insurance  against  fire,  it  is  the  dutv  of 


'  Whcclton   V.  Ilnrdistj-,  8  E.  «fe  B.  )•.    Scottish  Equitable  Life  Assurance 

•232.  Co.   2  II.  A  N.  19;    Whcelton   v.  liar- 

'^  rritchnrd  v.  Merchants'  Life  Assur-  disty,  8  E.  «fc  B.  2.32. 

mice  Society,  3  C.  B.  ^'.  S.  622.  * 'jones  v.  IVovincial  Insurance  Co.  3 

'  Fowkcs  I'.  Manchester  and  London  C.  B.  N.  8.  8t>. 

Life  Assurance  Co.  8  15.  it  S.  <»17.     See  *  Sillem  )•.  Tliornton.  3  E.  A  B.  StVs. 

Wood  I'.  Dwiuris,  11  Exch.  403;    Rcis  •  lb.;  Stokes  v.  Cox,  1  II.  A  N.  53o, 


122  MisKr.i'!:i:si:NTATi()N. 

the  party  proposini;  the  iusuraiu'o  to  fonimunicato  to  tho 
insurer  all  material  tacts  witliiii  his  kiiowledp'  t(»uchin<^  tho 
property.'  l»ut  the  insurer  may  limit  his  ri^ht  to  that  of 
beiui;  iulornuMl  df  what  is  in  tlie  kiii»\\Kd^e  of  tlie  jiarty  ]>ro- 
posini;  the  insurance,  not  only  as  to  its  existence  in  point  of 
fact,  hut  also  as  to  its  materiality.' 

The  strict  rule  with  respect  to  non-disclosure,  which  ob- 
tains in  the  case  of  policies  of  insurance,  does  not  extend  to 
contrjicts  of  suretyship  or  uMiaraiitee.^  If  the  creditor  he  spe- 
cially communicated  with  on  the  subject,  he  is  bound  to  make 
a  full,  fair,  and  honest  coiniiiuiiicatioil  of  every  circumstance 
within  his  knowledge,  calculated  in  any  way  to  iiilluence  the 
discretion  of  the  surety,  on  entering  into  the  re<|uired  obliga- 
tion.* l>ut  he  is  not  under  any  <luty  to  disclose  to  the  intended 
surety  voluntarily  and  without  being  asked  to  do  so,  any  cir- 
cumstances imconnected  with  the  particular  transaction  in 
which  he  is  about  to  engage,  which  will  render  his  position 
more  luizardous,  or  to  inform  him  of  any  matter  affecting  the 
general  credit  of  the  debtor,  or  to  call  his  attention  to  the 
transaction,  unless  there  be  something  in  it  which  might  not 
naturally  be  e.xpcctcd  to  take  place  between  the  parties.'  If 
the  intended  surety  desires  to  know  any  particular  matter  of 
which  the  creditor  may  be  informed,  he  must  make  it  the  sub- 
ject of  a  distinct  iiiiiuiry."  Ibit  if  there  be  aiiythiiiLT  in  the 
transaction  that  might  not  naturally  bo  exi)ccted  to  take  place 
between  the  parties  concerned  in  it,  the  knowledge  of  which  it 

*  Lindpnnu  »•.  Desborousrlj.  8  R.  «t  C.  r>i>8.  Sco  Smith  r.  Bank  of  Scotland,  1 
B92:  Huff  i».  TurtuT,  r,  Tiiunt.  .'i:J8.  Dow.  27i. 

»  Jont-H  V.  rrovincial  Insurance  Co.  3  '  llumillon   v.  AVntson,  12  CI.  A-  Fin. 

C.  H.  N.  S.  HI'..  11"';    ^niall    I'.   Currio,   2   l)rcw.    lo-j; 

*  North  HritiBh  InBurnnco  Co.  v.  Wvllu"<  t:  Lnboin-liiTo,  :t  1).  ,t  J.  r>l»:t, 
Lloyd.  1»»  I'xcii.  r.2:{;  Wythcs  ••.  Ln-  f.o'.t.  Si-o  (;riinru'lil  i'.  Ktlwar.lH,  2  1). 
iKiu'ciic-ri',  H  1>.  <k  J.  ('.o9;    ]^-o  c.  Jont-s,  J.  it  S.  :.«2. 

17  ('.  IJ.  N.  S.  4H2.     Sfu  Grvc-utivld   v.  *  Hamihoii   r.   WnUxon.    12    C.  L.   it 

K'lwardH.  2  I>.  .1.  <t  S.  r.Kj.  Tin.  !<•'.•;    Wythcs  v.  l.nhouvhoro,  .1  1>. 

*  Owen  r.  Il'itnnn.  .'t  .Mnc.  «L*  fJ.  n7H ;  «t  .1.  •'•"''•.  Sto  Orceafiuld  v.  Edwardi, 
Ilk-Bt    V.    Hr.iwn.    H   Jur.    N.    S.    C(»2 ;  2  D.  J.  A  6.  662. 

(irccofivld  v.  Edwarda,  2  D.  J.  (k  6.  oS2, 


:Misi;i:rKi:si:NTATi<)N.  123 

is  rcasonnMo  fn  inltT  would  li.-ivo  pri'veiituil  the  surety  iVoin 
cTitt'riii;^  into  the  trausaetioii,  the  ereditor  is  under  an  ohli^'a- 
tioii  to  make  the  dischtsiire.'  It,  tor  instance,  there  he  any 
]irivate  arrauij^cnient,  or  secret  uiidcr-t.inding,  oetwcen  the 
creditor  and  the  dehtor  connected  with  the  particular  transac- 
tion, in  which  lie  is  ahoiit  to  engage,  wherehy  the  risk  of  the 
surety  is  increased,'*  or  his  position  is  so  materially  varied,  that 
he  is  iKtt  in  the  position,  in  wliich  he  might  reasonably  have 
contemplated  to  he;^  or  it'  a  party  having  reason  to  suspect 
the  fidelity  of  his  clerk  ro<|uires  security  in  such  a  way  jvs  to 
hold  him  out  as  one  whom  he  considers  a  trustworthy  per- 
son,*" or  if  the  creditor  has  notice  that  the  circumstances  un- 
der which  the  dehtor  has  obtained  the  concurrence  of  the 
surety  lead  to  the  suspicion  of  fraud;'  concealment  is  fraudu- 
lent and  will  vitiate  the  transaction.*  "  It  must  in  every  case," 
said  lilackburn,  J.,  in  Lee  v.  Jones,'  "  depend  on  the  nature  of 

'  Ilnmilton  v.  Watson,  12  CI.  <L'  Fin.  8  D.  M.  &  G.  100;  Spaigbt  v.  Cowne,  1 

InO,  lilt ;    Lee  r.  Jones,  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  U.  «t  M.  359. 

ri(>,3;    Burke  v.  Kogerson,  12  Jiir.  N.  S.  *  Suiitli  v.  Bank  of  Scotland,  1  Dow, 

«-.3.\     See   Squire   i:  Whitton,   1    II.  L.  272. 

:!;>;{;  Greenfield  v.  Edwards.  2  D.  J.  ifc  *  Owen  v.  Iloman,  4  II.  L.  997;    Lee 

S.   582;    Rhodes  v.   Bate.   L.  R.  1  ( h.  v.   Jones,   17  C.B.N.  503;    Rhodes  v. 

Api>.   252;     Biirwick   v.   Enijlish  Joint  I5ate,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  Ap.  252.     See  Guar- 

Stock  Baid;,  2  L.  R.  Exch.  259.  dians  of  Stokesley  Union  v.  Strotlier, 

'  ridcock  ..  Bishop,  3  B.  &  C.  605.  "^^'ee  Squire  v.  Whitton,  1  H,  L.  333. 

»  Evans  i-.  Breniridge,  2  K  «fe  J.  1 74 ;  '  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  506. 


*  A  person  can  not  be  considered  as  guilty  of  fraud  in  law  by  omittinir 
to  make  known  facts  of  an  important  character  afl'ccting  the  risk  of  the 
surely  when  it  does  not  appear  that  he  had  an  opportunity  to  do  so.  On 
the  contrary,  when  he  does  know  such  facts,  and  has  reason  to  believe  that 
they  are  not  known  to  the  proposed  surety,  if  information  be  sought  from 
him,  or  if  he  have  a  suitable  opportunity,  and  the  facts  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter that  they  are  not  found  in  the  usual  course  of  that  kind  of  business, 
and  are  such  as  materially  to  increase  the  risk,  it  is  his  duty  to  make  them 
known.  To  receive  a  surety  known  to  be  acting  upon  the  belief  that  there 
are  no  unusual  circumstances  by  which  hi-  risk  will  be  materially  increased, 
well  knowing  that  there  are  such  circumstances,  and  having  reasonable 
opporlunity  to  make  them  known,  is  a  legal  fraud  by  which  the  surety 
will  be  relieved  from  the  contract.  Franklin  Bank  r.  Coop.-r.  oG  Me.  179 ; 
b.c.'dl  Me.  U2. 


121  Misui:i'Ki:si:NTATi()X. 

the  transaction,  whctluT  the  tact  not  disclosed  is  sncli  that  it 
is  impliedly  represented  not  to  exist,  and  that  fact  ninst  1)0 
"JCcneraily  a  (pjcstion  of  fact  for  the  jnrv." 

lu  onh-r  that  a  (iuii])roinise  nuiy  he  sn^ported  in  equity, 
it  is  essential  that  the  parties  should  havf  acted  with  eijual 
knowledije,  or  at  least  equal  me:u)s  of  kn<n\  led;x^>  in  the  mat- 
ter. If  one  c»f  the  i)arties  has  knowledi^e  of  a  material  fact, 
which  he  withholds  from  the  others,  and  which  they  have  not 
rcasonahle  means  of  kiiowiiiL',  the  transaction  cannot  stand. 
A  compromise  cannot  he  apjirovnl  of  where  one  party  knows 
only  so  much  of  his  rights  Jis  the  oi>])0.site  ]>arty  chooses  to 
apprise  liim  of.  To  constitute  a  fair  compromise  of  a  douhtful 
riiijht,  the  facts  creatiiif;  the  douht  should  he  equally  known 
hv  all  the  parties.  There  must  he  a  full  an<l  fair  communica- 
tion of  all  material  circumstances  affecting  the  question,  which 
ft)niis  the  suhject-matter  of  the  agreement,  which  are  within 
the  knowledge  of  the  several  parties,  and  which  the  others 
have  not  reasonahle  means  of  knowing,  whether  such  informa- 
tion be  asked  for  by  them  or  not.  There  must  not  (»nly  1)0 
good  faith  and  lionest  intention,  but  full  disclosure,  ami  with- 
out full  disclosure  honest  intention  is  not  sutlicient.*  A  party 
to  a  eomi)romise  who  has  knowledge  of  a  fact,  must  not  take 
up<»n  himself  to  decide  that  the  supj^ressed  fact  is  innnaterial, 
if  it  could  l»y  any  }>ossibility  have  had  any  influence  on  the 
decision  of  the  other  party. ^     If  the  compromise  is  a  transac- 

'  Tiibbons  i».  Cnunt,  4  Vos.  840  ;  Wal-       don,  i'>.  471  ;  Li'onnrd  v.  Loonnrd,  J  H.  A 
kert'.  i?ymoDdfl, 3bw.  1 ;  Gordon t-.Gor-       li.  ISO;  llotchkiiW  v.  Dickion,  2  liiij^u, 


•  Trij;jr  r.  Hcail.  5  Hun)j)lu  52'.t ;  Carr  c.  Callnglmn,  3  Litt.  .•}(!."). 

('onci-alnu-nt  will  not  invali<latc'  a  coiiipromisc  unle^  a  Ions  Inn  been 
occnsionetl  thcn-liy.     C'tirric  r.  Steele,  2  Saiidf.  512. 

A  compromise  with  knowletljfo  of  all  the  facts  is  valiil  althou.<;h  tha 
adverse  party  lias  exprcHMMl  an  unfoundcil  opinion  npon  his  riijhts.  Hlako 
r.  Piik,  11  Vt.  4S:3;  SnltonstuJl  c.  Gordon,  HA  Ala.  I'J ;  BirUsong  c,  Bird- 
Kong,  U  Head.  289. 


MTSRKPItESKNTATK  )N'.  125 

lion  in  tlio  iiiitiirt;  i>i'  :i  taiiiiiy  :in-;iii;,'cMiiciil,  or  it",  under  the 
fircuMistances  of  tliu  case,  it  was  iIk;  duty  of  the  one  ])any  to 
gee  that  the  nature  of  the  transactiun  was  fully  c.\j)hiineil  to 
the  other,  these  [»rinciples  a]ii)Iy  witli  i)eculiar  force.*  ]*iit  if 
the  parties  to  a  family  arrangement  are  not  (jn  good  terms,  and 
are  really  at  arms'  leHi,'th,  the  ordinary  rules  as  to  disclosure  in 
family  arrangements  have  no  place.* 

Tlie  ruh;  with  lespect  to  compromises,  which  applies  be- 
tween private  individuals,  is  not  less  applicable  to  compro- 
mises by  the  courts  on  behalf  of  infants.  The  orders  of  the 
court  cannot  be  set  aside  on  gr(junds  less  strong  than  those 
whieli  would  lie  rcijuii-ed  to  set  aside  tiMusactions  between 
competent  i)artics.^ 

The  most  comprehensive  class  of  cases  in  which  equitable 
relief  is  sought  on  the  ground  of  concealment,  is  in  the  case  of 
transactions  between  persons  standing  in  a  tiduciaiy  relation 
to  each  other.  In  all  such  cases  the  ]>arty  wIkj  fills  the  posi- 
tion of  active  conlidcnce,  is  under  an  eipiitable  obligation  to 
disclose  to  the  ])arty  towards  whom  he  stands  in  such  relation, 
every  material  fact  which  he  hitnself  knows  calculated  to  influ- 
ence his  conduct  on  entering  into  the  ti'ansaction.  The  su}>- 
pression  of  any  nuiterial  tact  renders  tlu'  transaction  impeach- 
able in   e(|uity.'*      This    subject   will  come   into    review    in    a 

348;    Stcwnrt  v.  Stewart,  C  CI.  &  Fin.  Cooke,  4  Russ.  o8 ;  Pickering  v.  Picker- 

911;    Harvey   i'.    Co  >ke,   4    Huss.   ;J4,  ing.   2  Beav.  .51),  3  Jur.  743 ;    Smith  v. 

Piekeriii;^   v.   Pickerin:;.    2   Beav.    5i', ;  I'ineombe,  3  Mao.   <t(i.  653;    Davis  r. 

Sc<>tt  r.  Srott,  11  Ir.  Kij.  7."i;    (Toymonr  Chanter,  3  AV.  U.   321;    Greenwood  t. 

».  Piirge,  13  L.  J.  111.  322;    Bainbrijse  GrceiiwooJ,  2  I>.  J.  <t  S.  28.     See  Brent 

V.  Moss.  3  .fur.  X.  S.  .58;  Davis  v.  Clian-  v.  Brent,  10  L  J.  Ch.  84. 
ter,  3  W.  U.  321 ;  Greenwooil  v.  Green-  '  Irvine    v.   Kirkpalrick,   7  Bell's  Sc. 

wood,  2  D.  .1.  tfc  S.  2.S ;  Bnxdie  i:  Lord  App.  Ca.  18t>,  2ii9. 
Mostyn,  ib.  373.     See  Lloyd  v.  I'nssinij-  '  Brooke   v.   Lord  ilostvn.  2  D.  J.  «i; 

lmm,"Coop.  152  ;  M'Keliar  r.  Wallace,'8  S.  416. 

Moo.  P.  V.  378  ;    Triage  v.  Lavalh'e,  15  *  Walker  v.  Symonds,  3  Sw.  1 ;  Wood 

Moo.  P.  C.  270;    Cooke  i;.  Greves,  30  v.   Downe*,    18' Ves.    120;    Bulkier  ». 

Beav.  378.  Wilfnrd.    2   CI.    A-   Fin.    I(i2,  177-1«1  ; 

'Dunnage    v.    White,     1    Sw.    137;  Maddiford    r.    Ausfwick,    1    Sim.   8'.»: 

Gordon  I'.  Gordon,  3  Sw.  400;  Leonard  Lloyd  i:  Alt  wood,  3  D.  «t  J.  614  ;  Tohi- 

V.  Leonard,  2  B.  <&  B.  180 ;  Harvey  i-.  son  v.  Judge,  3  Drew.  306. 


126  Misi;i;i'i:r,si:NTATi<iN. 

sub.<ctiuciil  i>:i.i;o,  wlioiv  the  jtoi'uliar  c'4uities  between  persons 
standing  in  these  j^rodieanicnts  come  into  consideration. 

The  |»rincii>le  of  law,  that  a  man  who  makis  a  representa- 
tion to  anothir  in  such  a  wav,  oi-  lunh-r  .'-uch  cirfuinstanccs,  ns 
to  induce  liini  to  believe  that  it  is  meant  to  be  acted  on,  is 
liable  as  for  a  fraud,  in  the  event  of  the  representation  i>roving 
to  be  false,  and  damage  thereby  accruing  to  the  party  to  whom 
it  wjis  made,  though  common  to  both  law  and  ciiuity,*  is  not 
60  general  in  its  application  at  law  a-  in  i'<piity.  It  is  not 
necessary,  nor,  iierha}>s,  would  it  be  easy  to  detine  the  limits  of 
its  application  at  law,  but  in  ccpiity  the  ])rinciple  is  of  xary 
general  api>lication,  and  is  the  foundation  of  a  very  com])rc- 
hensive  and  most  salutary  ]>art  of  the  iuris(lictii>n.  A  man 
•who  has  so  conducted  himself  as  to  cause  a  reasonable  man  ti» 
believe  in  the  existence  of  a  particular  fact,  or  state  of  facts, 
or  things,  and  to  believe  that  the  representation,  as  conveyed 
to  his  mind,  was  meant  to  be  acted  on,  will  not  be  pci-niitted 
bv  a  court  of  e(piity  to  derogate  from  interests  whicli  have 
been  created,  or  rights  which  have  been  acquired  on  the  faith 
of  the  existence  of  such  a  fact,  or  state  of  facts  or  things,  by 
showing  that  the  fact,  or  state  of  facts  or  things,  was  nut  such 
as  he  represented  it  to  be,  or  by  determining  the  actual  state 
of  things  which  he  has  so  held  forth  as  the  consideration  for 
the  change  of  his  condition  by  the  otlnr.  (»r  to  enforce  liis 
leal  right,  if  any,  against  him,  unless  the  latter  has  received 
the  benefit  which  he  contemi)lated  at  the  time  he  was  induced 
to  alter  his  condition.''* 


•  Supra,  p.  68.  6f>fl ;  Pijotl  v.  Ptratton.  Julni.  ;:.')'.».  1  1). 

»  Wt-t  V.  Joiiff..  1   Sim.   N.  S.  207;  V.  it  .1.  -I'":  Co^iht  >:  .I...!.  1  l>.  F,  A  .1. 

Miijor  r.  Mi»ii>r,  1  l)rew.  Irt.'i;  Soincrsci-  'J I":    J»fiiily  i'.  <.'ary,  '.»  .Iiir.  .N.  S  hi.') 

uliirc   Lttiiai  Co.  r.  llnrcourt,  1!  1>.  iV  J.  Youiiiuiia  «•.  WiirniiiiH.  I..  K.  1  Kq.  18.").' 


♦  If  a  jKirty  ho  rondiict-i  hiniHtiras   uilliiv^ly  iinil  williiurly  to  lead 
ariotlicT  iato  tlie  belief  of  a  fact  wbrrvliy  lu;  would  l>c  injured  if  the  f.ict 


MISnEPRESEXTATiny.  127 

The  jti'iiu'ipli'  is  iii»t  limited  to  cases  wlicrc  a  diHtiuct  rej)re- 
t^eiilatioM  has  been  iiia(K',  hut  applies  ('(jually  to  cases  wheix'  a 
man,  hy  liis  silence,  jn'udiiees  a  false  inipressiuii  on  the  mind  cjI' 
anuther.^  If  a  man  has  been  silent,  when  in  coiiHcience  lie 
oiiij^ht  to  have  spoken,  ho  is  debarred  in  C(|uity  from  Kpeakin^ 
when  conscience  rivjnires  him  to  be  silent.^  If  a  ])arty  has  an 
interest  to  prevent  an  act  beini;  done,  and  he  ac(|nie.secs  in  it 
60  as  to  induce  a  reasonable  belief  that  he  consents  to  it,  and 
the  position  of  others  is  altered  by  their  giving  credit  to  his 
sincerity,  lie  lias  no  more  right  to  challenge  tlie  acts  to  their 
])rcjudice,  than  he  would  have,  had  it  been  done  by  his  pre- 
vious license.^  Parties  who  stand  by  without  asserting  their 
rights,  and  allow  otliers  to  incur  liabilities  which  they  might 
not  have  incurred  if  those  rights  had  been  asserted,  cannot 
set  np  those  rights  in  a  court  of  equity  as  against  -those  by 
wh(jm  such  liabilities  have  Leeu  incr.rrcd.^  AVhen,  for  in- 
stance, a  man  builds  or  lays  out  moneys  upon  land,  supposing 
it  to  be  his  own,  and  believing  he  has  a  good  title,  and  the 
real  owner,  perceiving  his  mistake,  abstains  from  setting  him 


'  Supra,  p.  OJ.  *  Ollivor   i:  K\ng,  8  D.  M.  &  G.  118. 

"  Nivpn  )'.  Belknap,  2  Johns.  (Amcr),      prr  TuiniT,  L.  J,;  Lindsaj'  v.  Gibbs,  3 
573,  J>f>'  Thonipi^on,  L'.  J.  D.  «fc  J.  0'J7. 

'  C'airncros-*  r.  Loriincr,  7  Jur.  N.  S. 
150,  ;>t/-  Lord  l'!mii)bell. 


were  not  as  so  apprehended,  the  person  imlucing  the  belief  mil  be  estop- 
ped from  dcnyinir  it  to  the  injury  of  such  person.  Crockett  v.  Lnshljroek, 
5  Mon.  530;  "Watson  r.  ^MeLaren,  10  "Wend.  557  ;  Petere  r.  Foster,  21 
"Wend.  172;  Davis  r.  Tliomus,  5  Leigh,  1 ;  Hank  r.  "Wollaston,  3  Ilarring. 
rO;  Ilicks  r.  Cram,  17  Vt.  449;  Clements  r.  Loggins,  2  Ala.  514;  Roe  r. 
Jerome,  18  Ct.  1G8 ;  Croat  v.  De  "Wolf,  1  R.  I.  393 ;  Robinson  r.  Justice,  3 
Peun.  19 ;  Cowles  p.  Haco,  21  Ct.  451. 

The  fact  that  his  conduct  arose  from  carekssness  or  negligence  is  no 
excuse.     Cady  r.  Owens,  ;>4  Vt.  598. 

The  doctrine  has  no  anplication  where  a  mistake  as  to  title  is  mutual, 
and  the  person  h::ving  no  title  baa  not  expeuded  any  money.  Stuart  r. 
Luddinglon,  1  Rand.  403. 


VJS  M  1 S  K 1  •  I •  R i:S i: N  1"  A  i'  1  ( » X . 

riu'Iit.  i'H'l  loaves  him  t»»  jutm-vi'iv  in    his  i-nur ;  *  or   where  ii 
luau,  muler  un  e.\i>eftation  crwUed  or  ciieouraijeil  by  tho  owner 


♦  Mere  silcnrc  and  tlic  m:»kiiij?  of  improvomonts  by  others,  is  not  siiffl- 
ciont.  ThiTo  must  h^  some  ini.'iT<lii'nt  in  the  trunsactioii  wliicli  would 
ni:ik<'  it  !i  fraud  in  tho  owner  to  insist  upon  liis  ic^xal  ri<^lit.  Siloiuc  will 
postpone  only  when-  siloncc  is  a  fraud.  Kolk  r.  liinh  Iniar,  (5  Watts,  SIIO; 
Cri'st  r.  Jack.  3  Watts,  'J38 ;  Dcvrrcux  r.  liur^'wyn,  5  In-d.  Eij.  351 ;  Nevin 
V.  Belknap,  2  Johns.  373;  Clalmu<;h  r.  Byerly,  7  Gill.  3:>4. 

Several  tliin<js  arc  essential  to  he  made  out  in  onler  to  the  operation  of 
the  rule.  1st.  The  art  or  declaraticm  of  the  person  must  be  wilful,  that  is 
with  knowled'^c  of  the  facts  upon  which  any  rit;lit  he  may  liave  must  de- 
pend, or  with  an  intention  to  deceive  the  other  party.  '2tl.  He  must  at 
least  be  aware  that  ho  is  jjiviiif;  countenance  to  the  alteration  of  the  con- 
duct of  the  other  party.  ;3d.  And  it  must  appear  that  the  other  party  has 
chmped  his  position  by  reason  of  such  inducement.  C'opeland  r.  Cope- 
land.  2S  Me.  525;  Morton  r.  Ilogdon,  32  Me.  127;  Morris  r.  Moore,  11 
Humph.  433;  Taylor  r.  Zipp,  11  Mo.  4H2;  Carpenter  r.  Slillwell,  12  Barb. 
128;  Eidred  r.  Ha/.lett,  33  Penn.  307. 

The  word  "  vrilfully,"  as  used  in  this  connection,  is  not  to  be  taken  in 
the  limited  sense  of  the  term  "  maliciously,"  or  of  the  term  "  fraudulently; " 
nor  do.'S it  neccssirily  imply  an  active  desire  to  produce  i  particular  im- 
pression, or  to  induce  a  particular  line  of  conduct.  Whatever  the  motive 
mav  b\  if  (me  so  acts  or  speaks  that  the  natural  consequence  of  his  words 
and  conduct  will  be  to  inlluence  another  to  chanL^e  his  condition,  he  is 
legally  chargeable  with  an  intent,  a  wilful  design  to  induce  the  other  to 
Ix'lieve  him  and  to  act  upon  that  belief,  if  such  proves  to  be  the  actual 
result.     Preston  v.  Mann,  2>  Ct.  118. 

If  a  party  has  misled  another  under  such  circumstances  that  he  had  no 
reasonable  grouml  for  suppo-iing  that  the  p -rson  whom  he  was  misleading 
was  to  act  upon  what  he  was  saying,  he  will  not  Ne  lM)und  by  his  represen- 
tations. If  a  stranger  hears  and  acts  upon  his  representations  the  doctrine 
does  not  apply.     Morgan  r.  Spanglcr,  4  Ohio  St.  R.  102. 

A  refusal  to  sjjeak  with  a  reason  given  for  it  is  not  the  same  thing  as 
silent  acquiescence  in  what  another  is  saying.     Taylor  r.  Kiy,  25  Ct.  250. 

The  rule  does  not  apply  where  the  means  and  opportunity  of  tracing 
title  are  equally  open  to  both  pirtie-;.  It  can  only  be  held  to  apply 
against  one  who  claims  und<T  some  trust  lien  or  other  right  not  ccpially 
oiH-n  and  apparent  to  l)oth  |)arties.     Tongue  r.  Nut  well,  17  .Md.  212. 

The  iini)rovementH  must  bt;  of  such  a  character  as  to  show  that  tho 
partv  iilared  tlu-m  there  in  coiili  lenee  of  his  being  the  owner  of  the  land. 
Caldwell  r.  Williams,  1  Baihy's  Ch.  175. 

Although  the  right  of  the  p.irly  who  thus  misleads  third  persons  by 
hi.<  silence  is  merely  a  reversionary  inlcran,  aud  sulyect  l<>  a  lite  estate  in 


MISKEPUKSKNT  AT  ION'.  1  'J!  I 

of  l.iu'l  tliat  licsliall  li;tvc  u  certain  interest,  takes  posBCSBioii  <>[' 
such  l;iii(l,  with  the  coiiseiit  of  the  owner,  ,'iii<I  ii|miii  the  faith 
of  8uch  promise  or  expectation,  with  the  knowledge  of  the  for- 
mer, and  witliout  objection  by  him,  hiys  out  moneys  upon  th'- 
hind  ;  in  sncli  cases  a  court  of  equity  M'ill  not  afterwards  alh»w 
the  real  owner  or  the  ]andh)rd,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  assert  hi- 
lei::al  ri^dit  a^-aiiist  the  otlier,  withuut  at  least  makiiiir  hint  a 
|)roper  compensation  for  tlie  e.\})ei:diture  wliich  lie  has  in- 
curred.^* If  the  works  on  which  moneys  have  been  laid  out 
arc  of  a  permanent  character,  or  are  works  wdiicli  point  to  per- 
manence, the  court  will  not  al](jw  thciii  to  l)e  interfered  witli, 
even  ujxm  the  ])ayinent  of  a  ])ropcr  compensation.  A  man 
who  by  liis  conduct  lias  encouraged  another  to  sj)end  inoncvs 
on  liis  land,  in  erecting  works  of  a  permanent  cliaracter,  cannot 
be  permitted  to  put  an  end  to  the  very  thing  which  lie  has  ap- 
])roved.     All  that  he  is  entitled  to  is  a  proper  compensation  in 

'  Enst  India  Co.  v.  Vincont,  2  Atk.  R-av.  20 ;  I.aird  »•.  Birkcnhoad  Raihvav 

S.3;  Dnnn  c.  Spnrrior,  7  Vi's.  2:55  ;  Shan-  Co.  Jolin.  514;  Ilnnourt  v.  White,  28 

non   V.   Bradstrtpt,   1   Sch.  it  Lef.  .')2;  Ik-av.  :{(•;{ ;  Archbold  t'.  Scully,  y  If.  L. 

(;rc2:orv«'.  Mi^^hi'il,  18  Ves.  328;   Caw-  Sfiii;   O'Fay   v.    Burke,   8  Ir.  Ch.    225; 

ilor  r.  Lewis.  1  Y.  .(■  C.  427;  Ci.irrard  Burke  ;•.  j'rinr,    15   Ir.   Cii.   106.     See 

I'.  O'Heilly,  .'n)!-.  .1-  War.  414;  ("hire  r.  IJanisdcn  c.  Dyson,  L.   R.    1   App.   Ca. 

Hardin;;,  (l  Ha.  2?:!;  Powell  v.  Thonia-i,  12'.i;  Nunn  r.  Fabian,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  App. 

»/).   oO.") ;   Duke    uf  Leeds   i-.  Lord  Am-  35, 
liurst,  2  I'll.    IIT;  AVhito  c.  Wakley,  26 


tlie  very  pei-son  whom  he  suffers  to  deal  with  the  property  as  absolute 
owner,  the  rule  of  equity  still  applies.  ni<,'ginbotham  v.  Barnctt,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  184;  Barclay  v.  Davidson,  G3  Penn.  40G. 

A  party  who  cncouracrcs  another  to  buy  up  a  piece  of  property,  can  not 
nlterwards  buy  uj)  a  better  title  and  assert  it.  Beaupland  r.  McKeen,  28 
Penn.  124;  Davis  r.  Handy,  37  N.  H.  Go. 

At  law  neither  concealment  nor  misrepresentation  nre  an  estoppel,  and 
there  is  no  rule  which  precludes  a  party  from  showing  ins  title.  Jones  r. 
Sasser,  1  Dev.  &  Bat.  4G2;  West  v.  Tilghman,  9  Ircd.  1G3;  McPlurson  r. 
Walters,  16  Ala.  714  ;  :\Iiller  r.  Piatt,  5  Duer,  272  ;  contra,  Corbctt  r.  Nor- 
cross,  35  N.  IL  99  ;   Corkliill  r.  Landers,  44  Barl).  218. 

*  Swain  r.  Scamens,  9  Wall.  2.j4  ;  Town  r.  Xcedham,  3  Paige,  54fi  ;  Hall 
r.  Fisher,  9  Barb.  17;  Carr  v.  AVallace,  7  Watts,  394;  Eply  r.  Withcrow,  7 
Watts,  163. 


l;;0  .MlSIil.l'KKSr.NTATlON. 

rospei't  of  the  land  wliiih  has  liroii  taktn.'  Tlic  piiiu-iplo  ap- 
plies to  c'oinjmnic'S  as  well  as  iiidivMuais.'  Thu  case  in  which 
the  jtrineiple  has  hccn  (anifd  t..  tin-  farthest  extent  is  Claver- 
ini:  /•.  Thomas.^  It  was  tlirrc  lu-ld  that  a  man  wlm  lias  stood 
liv  and  allowed  moneys  to  ho  spent  in  openin<;  u  mine,  which 
lie  knew  eoidd  oidy  he  worked  hy  a  wayleave  over  his  own 
land,  was  honnd  in  etpiity  to  <xive  the  wayleave. 

Another  illnstration  <»f  t!ie  jfriiuipie  tliat  a  man  wlm  re- 
mains silent  when  there  is  a  duty  to  speak  is  honnd  in  equity, 
is  where  a  man  chiimini,'  a  title  in  himself  to  i)roperty  is  privy 
to  the  fact  of  another,  with  color  of  title,  or  pretendinj;  to  title, 
dealing  with  the  property,  as  heini,'  his  own,  or  as  heinj:;  unin- 
cumhered,  and  conceals  his  claim.  A  man  who  claims  an  in- 
terest in  pro]»i'rty  need  not  voluntarily  communicate  the  exist- 
ence of  liis  claim  to  a  person  whom  he  knows  to  he  ahout 
])urchasini;  the  pro])erty,^  hut  the  supi)rcssion  or  concealment 
of  his  claim  is  a  fraud  in  tlie  sense  of  a  court  of  equity,  if  a 
man  is  privy  to  the  fact  lliat  tlie  ap[)an.'nt  owner  or  jKirty  in 
possession  is  about  t<»  deal  with  tlie  property  as  his  own,  and  as 
unincumbered,  and  he  does  not  i^ive  the  i)arty,  with  whom  Jio 
is  about  to  deal,  notice  of  his  right.  He  will  not  be  permitted 
by  a  court  of  e(iuity  to  set  up  afterwards  his  own  interest 
an-ainst  a  title  created    hy    the  other.'"     In  a  case  where  a 

'Duke   of    IJi-nufort   i-.    Pntrick,    17  r.M;  SnvftirtM>.  Foster.  0  Mod.  3rt ;   Bcr- 

n<-iiv.  C(t;  SdunT-et-liire  ranal  Co.  v.  ri~;f.>nl  r.  Milwiir.l,  '2  Atk.  ll);   Hookctt 

Iliircourt.'il).  it  J  :.'JtJ;  Mold  c.Wli.'at-  r.  Cordli-y,  1  Uro.  ('.  ('.  :i.'.7 ;  (iovelt  v. 

cT'-ft    -27    Hcav.    :.U'..     S.-c  U.ll  n.  Mid-  Kirlunon.i,  7  Sim.  1  ;  IJiowii  c  Thorpe, 

lui.d'ltailwiiv  ••o.tJ  1>.  .1-  .1.  tu.-S.  11  L.  .1.  V\x.  7:i ;   Hoyd   r.   Holtoii.   1  J. 

'  Hill  V.  South  Stairord^^hiro  Uaihvny  it  L.  7:{t';  Thomiis.m  »-.   Slm|is.ni,  2  .1. 

Co     II  Jur.  N.  S.  11)2.  «t    L.    IKi;  Ni«lii>!.Hon   y.   Iloojifr.  I  M. 

•bit.  6  Vc«.  C85t,  f.  Hu.  :ti>j.  it  C.  17'.>;  Zulufin  v.  Tyrif.    \h  Hoav. 

*So*Kooi>or  V.  Hnrrinon,  2  K.   it  J.  :>'.•!  ;   Maiii;ti"<  ••.   Di.von.   .'i  II.  L.  7:<»; 

10:i-  Mnn(;l.-Hf.  I»ix..ii.  :i  II.  L.  7 :{'••.  Oiliv.r    .•.    Kinir.   S    \\   M.   it  (J.  110; 

•  Tcnu'lulo  I'.  Tt-nMlalc.   Sil.   Ca.    Ch.  1»avi.s   v.    I).ivii«.  C,  .hir.    N.  S.   l:i2'2; 

r.O;   HunBdrii  r.  <■' I'ViiiV.  2  Vcrn.  l.'.n;  Iplnii  v.   Vaniur.    1    Ur.    it   Sin.   MM; 

IJiiw  P.  Tolc.  i/j.  2;;vi;  brnpi-r  «•.  Uor-  11'mi).ii- r.  (iumin.  1,.  U.  2  Ch.  A|i|i.  282. 
la»«;,    ib.   370;  Ibbolflon  v.   llhodes,  iA. 

♦  WeiKhdl  r.  Van  Ucnssh-r,  1  Johnn.  Cli.  31-J ;  Lpc  r.  Porter.  C  Jolina. 
CI).  20^;  Ka-'lc  r.  15urns,  T)  Call.  '!•>:!;  Harrison  c.   Kdwurd*,  H  Liti.  UIO; 


MISRKPRESKNTATION.  131 

mother  licaifl  lici-  mui  Ixt'ore  lils  marriage  dcc'lc»ro  tliiit  a  certain 
trnii  W118  to  coniu  U>  liiiu  at  her  ck-atli,  ami  was  witiie.s.s  to  a 
'Ireil,  whereby  the  reversion  was  settled  on  the  issue  of  the 
marriage,  she  was  held  compellable  in  equity  to  make  f^ood  the 
settlement.*  So,  also,  in  a  case  where  a  man  havin<^  a  claim 
uixiii  |i!'(>|)c'rty,  wliicli  was  the  subject  ol'a  reference,  knew  tli;,t 
the  arbitration  was  ^oini,^  on  but  did  not  brim;  Ibrward  li.' 
claim,  he  was  held  bound  by  the  award.^  In  Mocatta  v.  Muv- 
gatroydj^thc  principle  was  ap[)lied  in  the  case  of  a  first  mort- 
gagee, from  the  mere  circumstance  of  his  being  a  witness  to  a 
second  mortgage,  but  the  case  goes  too  far.  In  order  to  })ost- 
pone  a  prior  mortgage,  it  is  necessary  to  prove  against  him 
fraud  or  actual  notice  of  the  subsequent  mortgage.* 

'  lliinsdcn  V.  Clicyticy,  2  Vern.  150.  '  1  V.  W.  393. 

'  Uovctt  V.  Uichinoiid,  7  Sim.  1.  *  Ik-ckett  v.  L'ordley,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  S.'.:: 


Storrs  r.  Barker.  G  Johns.  Ch.  IGG ;  Ten  Eick  r.  Simpson,  !  S  indf.  Cb.  344  ; 
Allen  r.  Winston,  1  Kami.  0.1;  Skirving  f.  Neufville.  2  Dc-.^saii.  194;  Las- 
scUe  V,  Banu'tt,  1  Blackf.  130;  Dickenson  v.  Davis,  2  Loi;fb,401;  Ilowland 
r.  Scott,  2  Paige,  4UG;  Kaugley  r.  Spring,  8  Shep.  l;JO;  Bird  r.  Benton, 
2  Dev.  179  ;  Governor  r.  Freeman,  4  Dev.  472 ;  Dewey  v.  Field,  4  Met.  3S1  ; 
Thompson  r.  Sanborn,  11  N.  II.  201 ;  Tomlin  v.  Den,  4  Harris,  7G;  Ivors 
r.  Chandler,  1  Cbij)nian,  48 ;  Skinner  ».  Strouse,  4  Mo.  93 ;  Brothers  r. 
Porter,  G  B.  Mou.  lOG  ;  Cox  v.  Buck,  3  Strobb.  .'JG?  ;  March  v.  Weekerly,  13 
Ponn.  250;  Danley  v.  Rector,  5  Eng.  211. 

The  assent  is  as  much  to  be  inferred  from  the  encouragement  to  pay  a 
small  sum  as  the  whole  purchase  money,  for  the  purchaser,  inferring  such 
assent  fiom  such  payment,  may  reasonably  go  on  thereafter  to  complete  his 
Ijurcbase.     Eagle  v.  Burns,  5  Call.  403. 

The  tact  that  the  title  is  a  matter  of  record  is  no  defence  to  the  owner. 
Carr  r.  Wallace.  7  Watts,  394;  Eploy  r.  Witberow,  7  Watts,  1C3. 

If  the  truth  is  known  to  both  parlies,  or  if  both  parties  have  equal 
means  of  information,  the  rule  does  not  apply.  Catlin  v.  Grote,  4  E.  D. 
Smith,  290;  Tongue  v.  Xutwell,  17  Md.  212. 

A  party  who  stands  by  at  a  sale  under  an  execution,  may  by  his  roii- 
duct  preclude  himself  from  afterwards  setting  up  title  to  the  jiropcrty 
sold.  MDonald  r.  LindlU,  3  Kawle,  492;  Eplcy  i:  Witherow,  7  Watts, 
103;  Keelcr  ?!.  Vantuyle,  G  Barr.  2.')0;  Whittington  r.  Wright,  9  Geo.  23; 
Morland  r.  Bliss,  12  B.  Men.  253;  Gottschalk  r.  Du  Santos,  12  La.  An. 
473. 


i;>'2  .MlSULrilESENTATlOX. 

The  equitable  rule  tliat  a  man  claiiniiii,'  an  interest  in  prop- 
erty may  not  stand  ])y  and  conet'al  his  claim,  when  he  sees 
nn»tther  di'alin«;  with  the  jirojiorty  as  his  owu,  (»r  as  uniiiciiMi- 
bcred,  ni>pHes  willi  |ie(iiliar  tnrco,  if  tin-  pcrsmi  claiiniiii;  title 
ha»  in  any  way  actively  cncourai^ed  the  parties  to  deal  with 
each  other,*  *  or  has  confirmed  the])arty  in  the  error  into  which 
lie  has  lallen,  or  if  he  derives  any  benefit  from  the  delusion  so 
causc(l.'- 

In  order  to  justil'y  the  application  of  the  principle,  it  Ls  in- 
dispensable that  the  Jiarty  standing  by  should  be  fully  apprised 
of  his  rights,  and  should  by  his  conduct  encourage  the  other 
party  to  alter  his  condition,  and  that  the  latter  should  act  on 
the  faith  of  the  encouragement  so  held(»ut.^t     The  i)rinci])le 


'  Djor  V.  Dvcr,  2  Ch.  Ca.  lOR;  Dra-  •  Dnnn  v.  S|iiiiTi(T,  7  Ves.  230;  Bnr- 

pcr  r.   HorlnsV,  'i  Vern.  :i7i>;  ll>liots(in  nnrtl  r.  Willis.  Cr.   it  I'h.  s:>;  Mnrkt-r 

v.    UIkhIis,  ib.   :.:»:(;  lirown  r.  Tlioriu-.  »-.  Marker.  '.'  lln.   Iti;  Hooikf  r.  Clark, 

1 1  L.  J.  Cli.   7:i;  Davies  v.   Davies,  0  2.">  L.  J.  Ch.  JOT ;  Uamedciif.  Dyson,  L. 

Jur.  N.  S.  1322.  U.  1  Aiij).  Ca.  12y. 

'  Nicholson  I'.  Hooper,  4  M.  it  C.  17'J. 


*  Folk  r.  BcitlclmaD,  G  Watts.  :3:J9  ;  AilLs  r.  Graham,  0  Litt. 440 ;  Hlatk- 
wood  r.  Jones,  4  Jones'  E(j.  5t  , 

+  Snel;;rove  r.  Snelirrove,  4  Dessau.  274  ;  Biifkin<;Iiani  r.  Sniitli,  10 
Ohio,  288;  l{inj,'row  r.  Warder,  G  B.  ^Mon.  514;  Whitaker  r.  Williams,  20 
Ct  1*8;  Lewis  r.  San  Antonio,  7  Tex.  2H8;  Tilj^hman  f.  West,  8  Ired.  Ecj. 
183;  Dixficid  r.  Newton,  4  1  Me.  231  ;  MeAlleriy  r.  Omover,  7  Ohio  St.  ]{. 
yO;  Bo'.'^js  r.  Merced  (t  al.  14  Cal.  270;  Newman  r.  Kdwards,  ;J4  Penn.  132  ; 
Danlorth  r.  Adam.s  29  Ct.  107;  Junction  H.  R  Co.  r.  Ilarpold,  19  Ind. 
:A1;  Tongue  r.  Nutwell,  17  Md.  212;  Kohinson  v.  Justice,  2  Pmn.  19. 

Where  u  jiarty  acting;  under  a  mistake  of  law  or  of  fact.**,  doi-s  acts 
wliich  mislead  the  adverse  party,  he  is  estoppeil  as  well  as  if  he  was  not 
acting;  under  such  mi.xtake.  Garner  r.  Bird,  T)?  Barb.  277;  Barnes  r.  ]\Ic- 
Kay,  7  Ind.  :J01  ;  Tilton  r.  Nelson,  27  Harl).  ."jll.j ;  Aills  r.  Graham.  0  Litt. 
440;  Skinning  r.  Neufville,  2  I)es.sau.  194  ;  Strong  r.  Klsworth.  2(5  Vt.  300; 
Wells  r.  Pierce,  27  N.  JI.  .lO:);  Htorre  r.  Barker,  G  J«ihns.  Ch.  IGG;  MKcl- 
vey  r.  Trut.y,  4  W.  ct  S.  552:3;  Jackson  r.  Inubit,  2  Hill's  Ch.  411;  8.  c. 
Riley's  Ch.  9. 

positive  act.H  Ktnnd  upon  adillVnnt  footint;  from  mere  concealment; 
for  there,  a  title  may  be  pontponed  even  witliout  fraud,  in  accordance  with 
an  efjuitable  principle  of  uuiverwil  application,  that  where  a  loss  must 


Mi.sRi:riu:sr,NTATi<)N.  i:j;» 

dot'8  not  M|i]ily  in  favor  of  a  sf  iMiiL,'<;r  who  l.-iiiMs  on  laii<J,  Jciiuw  ■ 
ing  it  to  Itc  tilt'  jii'uperty  of  anutlur,  \\;>r  in  favor  ot'  a  Ic.-scc 
who  cxi)Cik18  iiioncys  witli  tlie  knowleil<^e  of  liis  luiidlord  on  iIm; 
improvcnu'iit  of  the  estate.  If  a  straii^'er  l)uihl8  on  hiiid  know- 
ing it  to  lie  tlie  j)roj»c'rty  of  another,  ecjuify  will  not  prevent 
tlie  real  owner  from  afterwards  cLiiniing  the  land,  witli  the 
hcnelit  of  all  the  (•.\[Mii(Jitiires  npon  it.  Su,  also,  if  a  tenant 
being  in  possession  of  land,  and  knowing  the  nature  and  e.xtent 
of  his  interest,  lays  out  money  n])on  it  in  the  hope  and  expec- 
tation of  an  extended  term  or  an  allowance  for  it,  then  If  sncii 
ho])G  or  ex])ectation  has  nut  been  created  or  encouraged  by  tlie 
landlord,  the  tenant  has  no  equity  to  prevent  the  landloi-d  from 
taking  possession  of  the  land  and  buildings  when  the  tenancy 
is  determined.*  *  Kor  does  the  principle  apply  in  favor  of  a 
man  who  is  conscious  of  a  defect  in  his  title,  and  with  such 
conviction  in  his  mind  expends  money  in  improvements  on  the 
estate.'  f 

'  rillini;   v.  Armitajro,    12   Ves.  TR ;  son,  L.  R.  1  App.  Cn.    129,  per   Lord 

Claro  Hail  I',  lliirdiii:^,  G  Iln,  27:5;  Duke  Kiiit;s(lo\vn.     See  Kcnnio  v.  Young,  2 

(if  Beaufort   v.   I'atrick,    17   licnv.    CO;  D.  d- .1.  1 12. 

llamer  v.  Tilslcy,  John.  487;  O'Fav  v.  '  Keime}'  v.  Brown,  .3  Ridg.  518. 
Burke,  8  Ir    Ch.  220 ;  llumsd'.n  v.  I>y- 


ncccssarily  fall  upon  one  of  two  innocent  persons,  it  shall  be  borne  by  him 
whose  act  has  occasioned  it.     Beaupland  v.  lIcKeen,  28  Penn.  124. 

The  excuse  of  ignorance  does  not  apply  where  the  misrepresentations 
that  mislead  another  are  made  by  a  party  who  is  consciously  ignorant  of 
the  matter  to  wliitli  they  relate  at  the  very  time  that  he  professes  a  full 
knowledge  of  it.     Preston  p.  Mann,  2.3  Ct.  118. 

An  express  agreement  recognizing  an  erroneous  boundary  will  conclude 
a  party  where  the  other  party,  acting  upon  the  faith  of  such  agreement, 
has  made  expensive  improvements,  the  benefit  of  which  will  be  lost  to  him 
if  the  Hue  is  disturbed.  Corkhill  r.  Landers,  44  Barb.  218  ;  Wood  r.  Mc- 
LcUan.  48  ^Jte  275  ;  Comlis  r.  Cooper,  5  Minn.  254. 

*  Ferris  v.  Coover,  10  Cal.  589;  Odlin  v.  Gove.  41  N.  II.  4(31;  H.ddwin 
r.  Uiehnian,  1  Stockt.  894  ;  Patton  c.  IMcClim',  1  ^lart.  &,  Yerg.  333 ;  Gray 
i\  Bartlett,  20  Pick.  18G. 

t  McCormick  r.   Mc.Murtrie,  4  Watts,    192;  Buckingham  r.  Smith,  10 


134  Misin:rrj:si:NTATi('>N. 

A  iiKui  wlu),  with  full  kii<»wli'(li;o  of  llii*  ronl  circiiinstanccs 
t»f  tlio  case,  ])oriuit.s  aiK»tlK'r,  under  a  mistake,  to  execute  a 
(leetl,  whereby  he  incurs  a  liability,  cannot  be  heard  to  say  that 
lie  has  contracted  liability  on  the  faith  of  the  other  being  sub- 
ject to  the  liability.* 

The  rule  at  law  as  to  leave  and  license  not  being  countcr- 
mandable  cannot,  perha])S,  as  far  as  it  goes,  be  distinguished 
from  the  equitable  doctrine  of  acquiescence,'  but  leave  and 
license  executed  may  be  set  up  at  law,  as  giving  a  right  and 
title,  only  in  cases  where  moneys  have  been  expendeil  by  a  man 
upon  his  own  land.'  No  right  or  title  can  be  ac(iuired  to  an 
casement,  or  other  right  over  the  land  of  another,  although  the 
license  may  have  been  executed,  and  moneys  may  have  been 
expended  upon  the  land  of  the  licensee  by  his  express  permis- 
sion. The  license  may  bo  at  any  time  countermanded  at  the 
Mill  of  the  owner  of  the  soil.*  But  in  equity  the  doctrine  of 
accjuiescence  apjdics  as  well  where  a  man  has  been  induced  to 


•  Broti!;hton  v.  Ilutt,  3  D.  A  J.  fiOl.  Mnrshall,  10  C.  B.  X.  S.   711;  Blood  c. 

'  Diiviesr.  Mnrshnll,   10  C.  B.  N.  S.  Killer.  11  Jr.  C.  L.  IJI. 

711. /T  \Vill.'S,  J.;  but   bcc  Swaiiic  ;-.  *  Wallis  r.  Harrison.  I  M.  .t  W.  B38; 

(.Jreat  Northern  llailway  Co,  'J  Jur.  N.  Wood  v.  Londbitii-r.  l;i  M.  it  W.  8.*{8; 

tj.  liyo.  Davics  V.  Marsliall,  lo  ('.  B.  X.  S.  711. 

»  Winter  »•.  Brockwell,  8   East,  809;  Sec  Fislier  »-.  .Moon.  1 1  L.  T.  N.  S.  fi23; 

Ilcwiins   i:  Slii|pliatn.  5  B.    «fc  C.  221;  but  seo  Blood  v.   KelKr.    11    Ir.  C.  L. 

Lig^iud  V.  Inge,  7  Bing.  G82  ;  Daviea  i'.  121. 


Ohio,  288;  Ilopbum  v.  McDowell,  17  S.  A  U.  :{S3;  Crest  r.  J.ick,  3  Watts, 
288. 

One  joint  tenant  cannot  make  improvements  on  the  common  property 
without  the  consent  of  the  rest,  and  tlien  chiim  to  hold  it  until  reimbursed 
n  proportion  of  the  moneys  expended.     Crest  r.  Jack,  3  Watt.f,  2:18. 

Tlie  law  in)putes  knowledf^c  of  every  fact  of  wliicli  tlie  exercise  of 
ordinary  dili;^ence  would  have  put  a  party  in  possession,  and  such  an  im- 
jtutation  of  knowIcd;.;e  is  sulheient  to  rebut  llie  infcr'ncc  of  a  merely  con- 
etruetive  frau<l,  wlii*  li  mi^dit  otherwise  be  implied  Irom  tlie  silence  of  tho 
owner.  AIcxan<h-r  r.  Kerr,  2  Hawle,  b3;  Chew  r.  Caloitt,  I  Walk.  81; 
RnoufT  c.  ThooipHoD,  10  Tcnn.  U37. 


MISRErRESENTATIo^,  135 

o.\|»cn<l  iiioiu'vs  on  tlic   l;iiiil  of  aiiutliiT,  as  where  tlio  {.'XjK'IkH- 
ture  has  hrcii  on  his  own  laml.* 

Tlie  equitable  doctrine  with  respect  to  the  part  })erl'orni- 
ance  of  parol  agreements  is  founded  on  the  general  doctrine  of 
law  as  to  niisro])resentation.  At  law  tlie  express  language  of 
the  Statute  of  Frauds  prevails,  and  the  doctrine  as  to  the  part 
performance  of  parol  agreements  has  no  place.  Hut  in  e<juity 
it  is  a  fraud  in  the  eye  of  the  court  to  set  up  tlie  absence  of  an 
agreement,  where  possession  has  been  given  on  the  faith  of  an 
agreement.  If  a  man  has  been  permitted  to  take  possession 
on  tlie  faitli  of  an  agreement,  it  is  against  equity  that  he  should 
be  treated  as  a  trespasser,  and  turned  out  of  possession,  on  tlie 
ground  that  there  is  no  agreement.  Where  possession  Iuh 
been  given  on  the  faitli  of  an  agreement,  a  court  of  equity  will, 
as  far  as  possible,  ascertain  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  and 
give  effect  to  it.''  Nothing,  however,  is  i)art  performance  that 
does  not  put  the  party  into  a  situation  that  it  is  a  fraud  upon 
liim,  if  the  agreement  be  not  performed.^  In  order,  too,  that 
an  act  of  part  performance  may  have  any  operation  whatso- 
ever, it  must  be  shown  plainly  what  the  terms  of  the  a"-ree- 
mcnt  arc,  and  it  must  clearly  appear  that  the  act  of  part  per- 
formance relied  on  is  properly  referable  to  an  agreement  such 
as  the  one  alleged  and  is  not  referable  to  another  title.*  The 
expenditure,  for  instance,  by  a  tenant  in  possession  on  repairs, 
is  referable  to  the  title  which  he  has  in  the  estate,  and  cannot 

'  Duke  of    Devonsliirc  v.   Eirlin,    It  Powell   v.    Lovei^rove,    S   D.  JI.  <t  G 

Benv.  630;  Duke  of  Beaufort !'.  Patrick,  or)7;    I'ain   i-.  Coombs,    1    I).   <fc  J    84- 

17  15eav.  00  ;  Wiiitc  v.  Wakley,  20  Be.iv.  Lillio  v.  Legh,  3  D.  «fc.  J.  2iil ;  Lincoln 

'Ji>;  Laird  I'.  Birkenhead  Railway  Co.,  v.    Wri:;Iit,  4  D.    tt  J.    10;    Steevcna' 

.lolin.  500;  FLshcr  v.  Moon,  11  L.  T.  N.  IIos[>ital  v.  Dyas,  1.5  Ir.  Cli.'403. 
>'^.  132;>.  '  Clinan  v.  Cooke,  1  8ch.  A  Lef.  41. 

'  Mundy  »■.  Jolliffe,  5  M.  <t  C.  177;  *  Fry  on  Specific  IVrfonnance,  174. 

Wilson   V.   West   Hartlepool    Railway  See  Dale   v.  liauiilton,  .5  Ha.  381  •  Lin- 

•  o.,  2  D.  J.   «fc   S.  473.      See  Bond   v.  coin   v.  Wriijlit,  4  D.  »t  J.  10;   rriee  »• 

Hopkins,  1  Sell.  i.t  Lef.  413,  433;  Mor-  Sahisburg,    32    Beav.    440;    Lord    »•. 

piiett  V.  Jone.-s,  1  Sw.  172 ;  Surconibc  i<.  L'nderdoiick,  1  Sandf.  Cli.  (.\mer.),  40; 

I'inniger,   3  1>.    M.   «L-  G.   571;    Great  Smith   v.  I'nderdonck,  ib.   579;  AVolfe 

Korlhern  Railway  Co.   v,   Lancashire,  v.  Froit,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  (Amor.),  72. 
ic,    Roilway    Co.,   1    Sm.  «fe  G,  81; 


136  Misui:rur.sr,NTATiox. 

be  deemed  nn  net  of  part  jH'rritnnaiice.'  Hut  flu-  laviii<,'  out  of 
inonev  Ity  a  tenant  in  jnissession,  in  pursuance  i>t"  a  parol  a:,n*ee- 
ment  for  a  leasee,  or  upon  the  faith  of  a  8j)ecitic  en/;a_<;enient 
that  possession  shouhl  not  bo  disturl)ed,  is  an  act  of  part  per- 
fonnanee.'  So,  also,  and  uj)on  the  same  i>riii(ipli',  the  posses- 
sion of  a  tenant  after  the  expiration  of  a  hasc,  is  not  a  j)art 
performance,  for  it  is  referable  to  the  title  he  has ;' but  it  is 
otherwise  if  the  possession  be  referable  to  an  agreement  for 
renewal.*  The  mere  payment  of  money  is  iu»t  ]»art  ])erform- 
anee,'^  nor  is  marria<;e  an  act  of  jiart  performance,  but  if  one  of 
the  contracting  j)arties  agrees,  as  the  consideration  for  a  mar- 
riage, to  do  something  more  tlian  marry,  as  to  settle  an  estate, 
and  in  consideration  of  that  i)romise  the  other  party  contracts 
to  make  a  settlement,  the  settlement  made  l>y  the  one  con- 
tracting party  is  a  good  act  of  part  performance' 

The  general  doctrine  of  law  with  resi)ect  to  misrepresenta- 
tion applies  to  cases  where  a  man,  by  his  negligent  conduct, 
puts  it  in  the  ])ower  of  a  third  l>arty  to  commit  a  fraud  upi»n 
another.  If  a  num,  by  neglect  of  some  duty  that  is  owing  to 
another,  or  to  the  general  public,  of  which  he  is  one,  leads  him 
to  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  certain  state  of  lacts,  and  the 
belief  so  induced  is  the  proximate  cause  of  leading  him  to  do  a 
certain  act,  whereby  he  is  prejudiced,  the  former  cannot  be 
attenvards  heard  as  against  the  latter  to  show  at  law  that  that 
state  of  facts  did  not  exist.'     The  same  j>riniMpU'  obtains  in 

'Wills    r.    Stra<llinpr.    3  Vos.    .S78;  'Wills    v.   Sfrndlinff.    .S    Ve&  378; 

Pillinsr  V.    Aniiiiai;.'.   I'i  Vcs.  7S ;  Snv-  Lincoln  v.  Wrii^lif.  -J  1).  it  J.  W. 

n-:i-  V.  ('nrroii.  1  IS.  .i  15.  *2<,:, ;  lirciinnn  *  Dowi-ll   r.  Dew,    1    V.  A   C.   C.  C. 

V.    IJolton,   '^    It.    ik    Wiir.    ;i«H.     .Sou  'Mr>. 

r.ainsdvii  v.  Dyson,   L.  11.    1    Ajip.  C.i,  *  Clinnn  r.  Cooke,  1  Sch.  «t  I,of.  -11. 

Ijy.  •  lliinnncrnl»  V  v.  Do   lliil.  12  (1.  .b 

'  Willd   V.    Slrmllintj.    3   Vch.    378;  Fin.  4.'i.     Sec  W'iir.l<n  r.  JoncH.  2  D.  «b 

Mtin.lv    r.    JoHiiri>.    5    .M.    A    V.    107;  J.  70;  Colon  v.  Cnlon.  h.  U.  1  Cli.  A|». 

Sutlii-rlnml  r  JJrl;::,'^,  1    lln.  -jr.;  Sliilli-  137.  L'  L.  K.  Ap.  C.».  127.     S.-c  riirllior 

Ni'cr  r.  JiirviH,  H    D.  .M.  .V  (J.  7y;  l.iinl  on  tin*  jtulyoct  of  part  pcTform:miv.  l-ry 

f.  Hirkenlu'iiil  Knilwnv  Co.,  .lolin.  .'on  ;  on    S|K'(ihc    I'lTfurnmnco,     171  —  I'.to; 

N.irin   r.    Ful.ian,   I..    U.    1    Hi.  Aj..  :;.'..  ^iit;.  V.  A   V.  l.M)— 1^7;  Durt.  V.  &  V. 

.*«ec   Itarnsdeu  v.  D}t»un,  L.  11.  1    Aj'p.  0.'>& — •'•I'll. 

Co.  129.  '  fewun   r.   North  Auftxniusiau   Ca, 


MISRKrRKSKNTATK IN.  137 

equity.  If  a  man,  iiltli(>u;,'li  lie  may  be  ac-tiii;^'  iti  the  most  en- 
tire •,'0oil  faith,  is  ^'uilty  of  Budi  a  do^Tce  of  neglect  m  to 
fiialtk'  aiinlhi'i-  so  to  deal  with  that  which  is  his  ri;;ht,  an  to 
load  ail  iiiiiocfHt  i>arty  to  assume  that  ho  i.s  <lealin;^  with  his 
own,  he  ereates  an  e(|uity  against  himself  in  favor  of  the  inno- 
cent party  who  has  boon  so  mislud,  and  must  bear  the  loss.' 
"It  is  a  fj^enoral  principle  of  eipiity,"  saiil  'riiriier,  ]j.  J,,  in 
Tayler  r.  Great  Indian  Peninsular  llailway  Company,^  "  that 
wherever  one  of  two  innocent  parties  must  suffer  by  tlie  acts 
of  a  third,  he  who  has  enabled  the  third  party  to  occasion  the 
loss  must  sustain  it."'  But  to  bring  a  case  within  the  prin- 
ciple, it  is  necessary  that  the  re[)reseutation  allowed  to  Ito  con- 
veyed to  the  mind  of  one  of  the  two  innocent  parties,  by  the 
negligent  conduct  of  the  other,  should  be  false,  and  that  he 
should  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  should  not  have  the  means 
which  wuuM  enable  a  reasonable  man  to  discover  the  false- 
hood,* and  that  the  negligence  should  be  in  respect  of  some 
duty  cast  upon  the  person  who  is  guilty  of  it,  and  should  be  in 
the  transaction  itself,  and  should  be  a  proximate  and  necessary 
cause  of  the  transaction.  It  is  not  sulhcient  that  it  should  be 
only  remotely  connected  with  it.'' 

The  application  of  the  principle,  and  the  determination  of 
the  better  equity,  as  between  two  innocent  parties,  who  have 
been  defrauded  by  a  third  party,  is  often  a  matter  of  much 
nicety.*    If  there  be  anything  in  the  transaction  calculated  to 


2  II.  <fe  C.  182.     See  Bank  of  Ireland  *  Vandeleur  v.   Blagrave,   17  L.   .F. 

I'.  Trustees  of  Evans'  Charities,  5  II.  L.  Cli.  45.     See  Kennedy  v.  Green,  .3  31. 

409.  &  K.  699. 

*  Teasdnlc  v.  Teasdale,  Sel.  Ca.  Ch.  '  Swan  v.  North  Eritisli    Australn- 

5€ ;  Evans  v  IVitknell,  6  Yes.  181 ;  Van-  sian  Co.,  2  H.  &  C.  182.     See  Trustees 

deleur   v.  Blaa;rave,   17   L.  J.   Ch.   45;  of  Evans'  Charit}'  v.  Bank  of  Ireland. 

West  V.  Jones,  1  Sim.  N.  S.  205  ;  Wal-  5  II.  L.  389 ;  Nicoll'a  Case,  3  D.  «t  .J. 

dron   V.   Sloper,    1    Drew,  19:5;   Perry  387. 

Ilerrick   r.    Attwood,  2    D.  <k  J.   21;  *  Sec  Frazer  r.  Jonen,  5  ITa.  475,  17 

Layard  i:  Maud,  L.  U.  4  Eq.  404.  L.  J.  Ch.  S53;  Jones  v.  Thomas,  11.  W. 

*"4  I).  A  J.  559,  574.  R.  .50, 
'  See   Qreenfield  t-.  Edwards,  2  I). 
J.  <&  S.  582. 

10 


138 


MisKi:rin:sr.NTATioN. 


excite  suspicicm,  or  to  put  <mc  of  tlie  ]>artii'S  iijitm  iiifjniry,  and 
he  ftbstains  from  iii<iuiry,  \\w  cKiiSLMjuriu'i'S  of  liin  own  lu-i^loct 
must  fall  U|)on  liiiii.'  WIkm-c,  fi»r  instance,  an  innoc-ent  party 
had  oci'i'pti'd  an  instruincnt  \vlii<li,  upon  its  very  face,  waa 
devoid  of  lejxal  validity,  the  court  hcM  tluit  as  between  him 
and  another  innocent  party,  the  loss  must  fall  uj)on  hini.' 

In  cases  where  there  is  nothinfj  to  ])Jit  either  of  the 
parties  upon  in<piiry,  the  court,  in  determining'  the  (piestion 
upon  which  of  two  innocent  parties  the  loss  must  fall,  has 
regard  to  the  relation,  if  any,  hctwcen  the  parties,  an<l  to 
their  respective  ri<;ht8  and  omissions.  Any  negli<::ence  or 
indiscretion  on  the  part  of  the  one,  nuiy  <;ive  the  other  a 
better  eiiuity.^  AVliere,  for  instance,  a  man  havin<;  dealin<;s 
with  another,  duly  and  formally  executed  a  deed  in  respect  of 
the  dealing:?,  and  delivered  the  deed  to  the  agent  of  the-other 
party,  without  receiving  the  purchase-moneys,  and  the  agent 
received  the  moneys  from  his  principal  a!ul  misai>i)rci])riated 
them,  it  was  held  that  tlic  loss  must  fall  on  the  former, 
inasmuch  as  he  had,  by  his  negligence  in  delivering  the  deed 
to  the  agent,  ])ut  it  into  his  power  to  commit  the  fraud.*  A 
man  who  has  permitted  himself  to  be  made  a  tool  of  by 
another,  in  whose  hands  he  lias  left  the  deed,  cannot  set  up 
as  against  a  third  party,  who  has  acted  fairly  and  honestly  in 
the  transaction,  that  he  has  been  deceived.'  Wlicrc,  on  the 
other  liand,  a   man  having  dealings  with   anotlur,  in   respect 


'  Kennedy  v.  Green,  3  M.  «t  Iv.  &W. 
Pec  in/ra,  Notick. 

*  Tiivlor  r.  <;r<at  Indian  Peninsular 
Co.,  4  1).  A.  J.  '>'iO.  Soo  (Jottnm  v. 
Kiwtern  CouiitifH  Knilwny  Co..  1  J.  <t 
H.  '243;  Donnlduon  r.  (iillotf,  L.  K.  3 
K...  'J77. 

•  Vnndrl.-iir  »•.  TUnirrnvc.  •',  I'.cnv  M:>, 
IT  L.  J.  •Ii.  4.'>:  HiorMH  ,-.  iiitulidn.  bl 
Ilenv.  '.'.'.'.•;  Wiildron  <.  ^!"l•'■r.  1  I)r«-\v. 
111.'!;  CoUurii  <■.  K.ist.rn  Couiitii-s  Itail- 
wnv  <'".  1  J.  A  Hn-  -••'• :  •'"-'"'  •'•  •'"I"'"'. 
S  l>.  V.  <t  J.  '^CA  ;  8|)niglit  v.  Cowm-,  1 


Ii.  .t  M.  3il»;  Dowle  v.  Saunders.  2  II. 
A  M.  'IM. 

•  West  I'.  Jones.  1  Sim.  N.  S.  20S. 
Si'c  Young  V.  White,  7  llenv.  MS; 
YoHMfj  r.  <«uy,  K  Hen  v.  147;  (Jriflin  *: 
( 'Inwcs.  'JO  H<av.  «il ;  Kutlioiit  r.  Turner, 
r.  W.  K.  f.7(i ;  Wrnul  r.  Unwis.  25  Bc»v. 
3t'.'.t ;  Siiiitli  r.  KvauH,  'JS  Hcav.  ft2 ; 
Wall  V.  (•..rkiriil,  3  I).  F  it  J.  737;  10 
II.  I-.  2J'J;  AiUilts  V.  liiviH,  33  Beav. 

*  Greenfield  f.  Edwards,  2  D.  J.  «b  a 

fi'JO. 


MISREPRESENTATION.  1.39 

of  which,  tho  .same  jktsoii  actod  as  a;,'('nt  lor  botli  partica, 
delivered  to  the  a^iit  an  iiistninicMt,  reciting  the  payment  of 
the  j)iir('liasc'-nK)ni'ys,  hut  witliniii  Hkj  receipt  i\>r  the  moneys 
bein^  8i;^ncd,  and  the  a^ent  received  tlie  moneys  in  payment 
from  tlic  other  l>arty,  hnt  did  not  pay  them  over  to  tho 
former,  or  inform  liim  that  they  -were  in  his  liands,  it  was 
hekl  that  tlie  latter,  wlio  hail  jiaid  the  moneys  iiito  tlic  hands 
of  the  agent;  must  hear  the  loss.^ 

The  question  as  to  which  of  two  innocent  parties  nmst 
bear  the  loss  occasioned  by  the  fraufl  of  a  third  l>artj, 
sometimes  arises  in  cases  where  a  banker  has  paid  moneys 
upon  a  forp^ed  cheque.  Payment  on  a  forged  cheque  is  not 
any  payment  at  all  as  between  the  party  paying  and  the 
person  whose  name  is  forged.^  Ihit  cases  may  exist  in  which 
such  payment  may  be  made  valid  by  reason  of  collateral 
matters.  "Where  there  has  been  negligence  or  want  of  due 
caution  in  the  circumstances  that  were  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  payment,  on  the  part  of  the  person  whose  name  is 
forged,  he  cannot  set  up  the  invalidity  of  the  document  as 
against  his  bankers,  who  have  been  induced  thereby  to  pay 
moneys  upon  it,  if  it  appears  that  they  have  acted  in  the 
matter  with  reasonable  caution.'  In  Young  r.  Grote,*  for 
instance,  the  customer  of  a  bank  signed  a  cheque  in  blauk, 
to  be  filled  up  by  his  wife,  with  whom  he  left  it,  and  she 
filled  it  up  with  a  sum  of  £50,  written  so  inartificially  that  a 
servant  was  able  to  insert  the  words  "  three  hundred  "  before 
the  word  "fifty,"  so  as  to  deceive  the  bank  without  blame 
on  their  part.  It  was  held  that  the  loss  must  fall  on  the 
customer. 


'  Vandcleur  r.  Blacravc,  6  Bcav.  565,  *  Orr  r.  Union  Bank  of  Scotland.  1 

17  L.  J.  Ch.  45.    See  Rusbout  v.  Turner,  Mncq.  513. 

5  W.  H.  f.TO;  Ocilvic  r.   Juaffreson.   2  '  Jh.  .'.•23;  British  Linen  Co.  »■.  Cale- 

OifT.  s.'iS  ;  Spaiixht  v.  Cowne,  1  H.  <t  M.  tlonian  Insurance  Co.  4  Macq.  114. 

3.-,'.);  AVall  r.  Cockcrell.   10  U.  L.  229;  M  Bing.  253. 
Adsetts  I'.  Ilives.  33  Beav.  02. 


iin 


■MISnri'Ul.sr.NTATlON, 


In  eases  arisiii*;  bftwei'ii  Xhv  nwiur  of  the  li'i!::il  rstato, 
or  n  first  in()rt<;a<;ce,  ami  a  prrsi'ii  who  rhiiiiis  an  equity 
iijHUi  the  c>tate,  or  the  title  ileeds,  the  aj»i>lii'atioii  of  the 
])rinciple  dilVers  from  the  rule  whieli  aj»i)lies'  in  ordinary 
eases.  In  order  that  the  owner  of  the  lej^al  estate,  or  iirst 
niort^aixee,  sliouhl  l»e  postpcnutl  to  a  subsequent  incund>ra'ncer, 
it  is  not  suftieicnt  to  make  out  a  ease  of  mere  nej;lij,'en(e.  To 
liave  that  elTeet,  a  case  of  gross  negligence  must  he  made  out.' 
If  a  man,  in  taking  tlie  legal  estate,  makes  no  inquiry  for 
the  title  deeds,  but  allows  them  to  remain  in  the  hands  of 
the  vendor  or  mortgagor,  his  conduct  aH'ords  evidence  of  an 
amount  of  negligence  suliicient  to  justify  the  court  in  im- 
putintr   to   him  a  knowledi^e  of  those  facts   which,  bv  the  use 


•  Peter  v.  Russell,  2  Vern.  726 ;  Evans 
•.  Bicknc-ll,  r.  Vcs.  171,  I'.'l ;  C'olyer  i-. 
riiicli.  r»  11.  L.  '.'<>.'> ;  Carter  v.  Carter,  o 
K.  «fc  J.  040  ;  Terry  llcrrick  v.  .Attwood, 
2  D.  «fc  J.  21.  The  distinction  between 
mere  negligence  nnd  gross  nei^ligence 
was  recognized  by  tlie  Konian  lawyers. 
Culpa  levis,  in  the  laiigmigeof  the  Koia- 
an  law,  is  the  want  of  that  diligence 
wliich  is  talicn  by  jirudent,  careful 
jiersons ;  ciiljia  lutd  is  tlie  want  of  tiiat 
diligence  wiiich  might  be  e.xp'ctcd  even 
ol  a  per-ion  of  le.ss  tlian  ordinary  j)ru- 
'Jence.  Llndl.  on  Jur.  IHI,  Culpi  Itit.i 
wajj  conBulered  generally  e()u:vuient  to 
(I'Jitx.  Lata  culjiij  Jolocoiiij>aralur.  L)ig. 
11,  tit.  C,  let.'.  1,  ^  1.  "  Lata  cnl/ia  cjit 
'.iinia  iiti/lif/eiiiiii,  Id  est  non  intflliijcre 
qifjil  oiniun  intelli;/init."  Dig.  Lib.  rdi, 
tit.  it'i,  leg.  2i;{.  "Si  gulu  uonalfum 
tpoiltan  iiu'in  nnminum  natiira  dcsiJerat 
diligeu*  ft,  fruude  uon  cant."  l>ig. 
Lib.  16,  tit.  :J.  leg.  32.  "  S,nim»  est," 
lulda  a  commcntutor,  Hi.,  "  latmn  mi/tain 
duitbun  indl'iii  dej>r</irndi.  J'rimo  *i 
oitit  nun  ad  eutn  tinfliim  fac'mt,  ijtio 
omnfH  h<niiiur»  JiirimU  ;  allrro,  m  ijui» 
fi'»/i  toilrin  tii'fdo  in  rr  alirtiii  iir  nt  HHiii 
rtbuM  vrrtetur  ;  utrumifur  ditto  jinuhnum 
t»t.  Jjrru  eM  fpfitii*  enndein  in  iilicnin 
ifunin  in  «M'«  rrltiiit  dili'jrntiain  et  fidfin 
prtr»titt,  noH  tamen  e<iin  t/uiun  cintun- 
thtrtioren  himiinei  el  diliffiHtiMtiini  iiithi- 
(tttit:  ft,  ut  piuci'  dieitiu,  levm  cuI/hi  e*t 
cuntuela  in  ribtf  iuis  tl  utitnia  nrijliijen- 


tia  ;  lata  ent  in  *mi*  dllir/entia,  in  nlietiin 
iictiliprntia.''  If  the  fanlt  is  one  which 
any  man  in  his  senses  wouKI  have 
scrupled  to  commit,  tiier<>  is  lata  cuIjhi: 
if  the  fault  consists  in  falling  tAvirl  of 
the  hi^:hest  standard  of  carefulness  to 
avoid  injury  that  could  bo  found  ;  such, 
for  instance,  as  the  carefulness  ern- 
l>loycd  in  the  manngeinent  of  affairs  by 
a  person  who  wi>uld  ileserve  to  be  called 
(iiiiiKs  fi'itrrj'amiiiii.^,  tl.e  eid/ta  was  Irris 
or  li  risxiinn.  Or.  again,  it  might  consist 
in  falling  short  of  the  caro  whicii  tiio 
person  guilty  of  the  culpa  was  aceus- 
toMjed  to  bestow  on  liis  own  atl'air.s. 
/,<i/a  ci«///a  was  treated  very  much  on 
the  same  footing  as  doliiii,  as  there  al- 
ways seems  something  wilful  in  the  c.\- 
tr<-me  negligence,  the  rrns.ii  tiei/lifjentia 
which  characteri/.ed  the  lata  culpa. — 
Sandars'  Inst,  p  477.  When  it  is  said 
by  the  Ilonnm  lawyers  tliat  neglii^ence, 
heedlessness,  or  rashness  is  e<juivali-ni, 
in  certain  cases,  to  dolus,  the  meaning 
is,  that,  juiliring  from  the  conduct  of 
the  party,  it  is  impo><siblo  to  determine 
whether  he  intendeij,  or  whether  he 
was  negligent,  heeille'<s.  or  rasli ;  nnd 
that,  Hucli    being   the   case,  it   shall    be 

|)resumed  that  he  intemli'd,  and  his 
lability  shall  be  ndjudgeil  accordingly, 
provided  that  the  (luesiion  arise  in  a 
civd  action. — Austin  sLect  on  Jur.  vol. 
11.  p.  1«>7. 


:\I  1  .s  K  i ;  1  •  K ICSK is  TAT  1  ( » X .  141 

of  onliiiary  cliligenci!  he  imi.-t  iiiivc  discdvcrc"!.  So,  also, 
^^rus.s  n('';li.i;c'iice  Avill  1)0  iinputrd  to  :i  iiiaii  who,  having 
jiartcd  w  ith  the  tilli;  dcffis  Inr  a  ri'iisoiialdo  juirjio.-c,  ;dloWH 
them  to  rniialii  out  of  his  ]iossi'.s.-.i()ii  f(>r  an  univasonaLlL* 
time.  liiit  if  a  man,  on  takiii^^  tho  ic^^^al  estate  bond  Jid. 
inquires  for  the  title  deeds,  and  a  n-asonalde  explanation  or 
excuse  is  given  for  their  n(»n-delivery,  or  if  he  parts  vvitli 
them  lor  a  reasonahh'  juirposc,  and  does  not  allow  them  to 
remain  ont  of  his  hands  without  making  reasonable  inquirie.4 
for  them,  or  using  reasonable  endeavors  to  get  them  bach, 
gross  negligence  will  not  be  imjiuted  to  him,  althouglj  a 
fraud  may  be  practised  by  means  oi  Ihem  upon  an  innocent 
party.^ 

In  cases,  however,  where  the  contest  lies  between  parties 
liaving  merely  equitable  interests,  unaccompanied  by  the  legal 
estate,  an  eipiitable  mortgagee  who  either  omits  to  get,  or 
who  having  got  the  deeds,  gives  them  u}),  and  thereby  arms 
the  mortgagor  with  the  means  of  dealing  with  the  estate,  as 
the  absolute  legal  or  equitable  owner,  free  from  any  shadow  of 
incumbrance  or  adverse  equity,  will  be  posti>oned  to  another 
equitable  incumbrancer  who  has  got  possession  of  the  deeds, 
and  whose  equity  in  other  respects  is  of  the  same  nature  and 
quality. '^  In  examining  into  the  relative  merits  or  equities 
of  two  parties  having  adverse  equitable  interests,  the  court 
directs  its  attention  not  only  to  the  nature  and  conditions  of 
their  respective  equitable  interests,  but  to  the  circumstances  of 


•  Tetcr  V.  KupppII,  2  Vcrn.  7'2i'. ;  Mar-  Ernest,  3  D.  J.  A:  S.  IIG.     See  Allen  >: 

tinez  V.  Cooper,  2  lliiss.  I'.tS  ;  Farrow  v.  Kniijht,  1 1  .Tur.  f>27 ;  Dnwle  v.  Saunders, 

Rees,  4  Beav.  18;  Stevens  c.  Stevens,  2  211.  it  M.  212;  but  see  Layard  i;  MauJ, 

Coll.   20;   Wortliington   v.  Morgan,  10  L.  U.  4  Ktj.  40r,,  y«r  .Mnlins.  V.-C. 
Sim.  547;  Hewitt  »•.  Looseinore,  V)  Ila.  '  Allen  v.  Knii^ht,  5  Ha.  272,  11  Jnr. 

449;  Rayne  i'.  IJaker,  1  Giff.  2I();  Col-  527;   Waldron  v.  Sloper.  1  Drew.  193 

ver   i\   Fiiieli,    .'i   H.  L.    do'i;  I'arter  c  Rice   r.    Kioe,    2   Drew,  iy'-j;    I'owlc    « 

Carter,  :>  K.  it  J.   040;   I'err}-  llerrick  Saunders,  2  II.   it  .M.  242;  Layard  u 

f.  Attwood,    2    D.  it  J.    21  ;    Hunt   i-.  Maud,  L.  R.  4  K^].  «'J7. 
Elmes,   2  D.  F.  «k  J.   578 ;  Uop^-ood  v. 


1  I'J  :MISKi:rilESENTATl(1\. 

tlii'ir  a('(|ui>ititin,  and  \\iv.  whulo  cuiuliu'l  of  viwh   \KXvt\  with 
respect  thereto.* 

No  priority  can  be  accpiired  tliroui^li  the  iiu'(liniii  of  a 
breach  t»f  duty.'  Nci^lii^i'iice  will  ii(»t  he  imputed  to  a  man 
for  leaving  his  title  deeds  in  the  liands  of  his  solicitor',  or 
tleliverintj  a  transfer  of  shares  and  certificates  to  a  bmker  for 
the  j)uri»use  uf  registration  * ;  nor  will  negligence  he  imputed 
to  trustees  for  leaving  documents  of  title  in  the  hands  of  ono 
of  their  numher',  or  a  corporation  seal  in  tin-  hands  of  their 
secretary.' 

In  the  case  of  etjuitahlo  interests  in  jiersonal  estate,  or 
choses  in  acti(tn,  a  ]>unhaser  or  other  incund)rancer,  who  fails 
to  give  notice  of  his  interest  to  the  j»ers(»n  in  possession  of  the 
fund,  will  he  postj)oned  to  an  incuinhrancer,  tliough  suhse- 
quent  in  date,  who  gives  notice.'  Jhit  this  rule  has  no  a|>- 
plication  whatever  to  real  estate.  As  between  equitable 
incundtrancers  of  real  estate,  he  whose  security  is  prior  in 
date,  has  the  better  eipiity.  lie  who  takes  the  lirst  security 
is  entitled  to  priority  over  a  per.-(jn  who  takes  a  subse(pK'nt 
security,  notwithstanding  that  the  latter  may  have  been  be- 
foreliand  in  giving  the  party  in  possession  of  the  estate  notice 
of  his  security.®  An  I'ljuitaMr  incuiiiliranccr  on  real  estate  is 
not  as  against  another  i-quitable  incund)rancer  postponed  by 
any  absence  of  activity  in  asserting  his  legal  right,  except 
such  as  amounts  to  fraud." 


'  Rico  f.  nice,  2  Drew.  80.  •  Bnnk   of    Irclnnd    r.    Trustees   of 

'  ("orv  r.  Kvrc,  1  D.  J.  «k  S.  110.  Evniis"  Clinrifnn.  r.  M.  L.  lo'.t. 

*  Ib.,'lk>u>n  V.  Wlllioms,  8  Y.  &  J.  '  Dinrlu  r.   Hull.  :>  Uush.   1;   Ix)ve. 
150.  r'uV^'-  r.  ('t)i>|iir.  ilt.  llO;  Fosiir  i'.  Hlnrk- 

*  Donald Hoii   t>.  (;illott,   L.  U.  11  Kij.  !.t(.iii'.  1  .M.  it  K.  T.*l ;  Miirliii   c  Scdu- 
277.  wick.  U  Hrav.  .H:t:{;    Ktty   »•.   nriil;,M'i«,  2 

*  CVittnni  r.  Kn'ttcrn  (ViuntioH  Hnil-  Y.  tV  ('.  ('.  ('.  -IM;  Tliuin|)S()ii  v.  Toni- 
way  Co.  1  .1.  A  H.  24.J.     Sec  Ciirt.r  v.  kins.  2  Dr.  A-  Sm.  H. 

Carter.  .'{  K.  A-  J.  t'.l7;    StucklmuBi'   v.  '  .loii.-t  r.  Johch.  8  Sim.  0J2;  Wilt- 

Counti-As   of  J»Tccv,    1    J.    A    H.    721;  Hliin- r.  Kalil'it-',  IJ  Sim,  7il. 

Doddij  r.  Hills,  2  ll.  4  M.  421.  '  ICooi.rr  ..  llarriBon,  2  K.  4  J.  103. 


riiAt  1)  i'r;:su.ml:d.  143 


SECTION  III.— FRAUD  To  I'.K  PRESUMED  FIIOM  TIIi: 
INHQUAI^ITY  OF  FOOTING  OF  Till:  I'AKTIJ^S.— IN- 
A!)1:qI'A('Y  of  CONSIDERATION. 

BicsiDKs  that  l<iii<l  dt"  tVaiKl  wliich  consists  in  misrepresenta- 
tion, express  nr  implied,  there  is  unotlier  wliidi  will  be  pre- 
sumed, when  parties  to  a  transaction  do  not  stand  upon  the 
C(|nal  looting;  on  whie-li  ])arties  to  a  transaction  sliould  stand.* 
The  fi^eneral  theory  of  tlic  law,  in  i-ei^ard  to  acts  (hjne  and  con- 
tracts made  by  parties  allectin^  their  ri<j^hts  and  interests 
being  that,  in  order  to  bind  them  tliere  must  be  a  free  and 
full  consent,  and  consent  being  an  act  of  reason  accompanied 
with  deliberation,  transactions,  in  which  one  of  the  parties  is 
not  as  free  and  voluntary  an  agent  as  the  other,  or  does  not 
apprehend  the  meaning  and  ctiect  of  what  lie  is  doing,  want 
the  very  qualities  which  are  essential  to  the  validity  of  all 
transactions,'^  In  order  that  there  should  be  consent,  it  is 
essential  that  the  consent  should  be  given  with  reflection  and 
■with  knowledge,  freely,  without  restraint  or  surprise.  Fraud, 
therefore,  whether  consisting  in  misrepresentation,  conceal- 
ment, violence,  duress,  or  constraint,  will  nullify  consent.'  It 
is  npon  this  principle  that  when  a  person,  who  from  his  state  of 
mind,  age,  weakness,  or  other  peculiar  circumstances,  is  inca- 
pable of  exercising  a  free  discretion,  is  induced  by  another  to 
do  any  act,  which  may  tend  to  the  injury  of  himself  or  his 
representatives,  that  other  shall  not  be  allowed  to  derive  any 
benefit  from  his  improper  conduct.  The  equitable  rule  is  of 
universal  application  that  where  a  man  is  not  a  free  agent, 


•  Edwards  v.  Mcvrick.  2  Ila.  68.  » Toull.  Cod.  Civ.  liv.  3,  tit.  8,  §  2, 

•  Story's  Eq  Jur.  g  222.  n.  38. 


Ill  ruAiK  i-:;:  sim:;!). 

or  is   nut   ct|ual   to   protieliiii^  himsulf,  llio  c<uirt   will  ]>rotcct 
liiin.*  * 

It  i<  upon  lli(>  u:(mut;i1  ^'r<»iMi<l  flint  llicrc  is  ;i  want  of 
nitional  and  dclilicrato  cniiM-iit  that  tin-  cuiitracts  of  idiots, 
lunatics,  and  dther  |>erson.s  lum  vtonpotcti  jniiitin,  are  jjenerally 
(U'oniod  iiivali<l  by  a  court  of  C(iuity.  The  nuTc  fact,  liowcvor, 
that  a  man  is  in  a  state  of  lunacy,  or  is  even  in  cuntinenient, 
Mill  not  ]»  r  se  induce  the  court  to  interfere,  if  it  be  dibtinctly 


'  Evnns  r.   Llowellvn.  1  Cox,  310;       Monk.  10  Jnr.  N.  R.  r.Ol  ;   Williams  «•. 
Crowo  V.  Unllaril.  1  Ves.  Jr.  21.'>;  Cas-       Bayliy,  L.  K.  1  Ai.p.  Ca.  2">0. 
borne  r.  Barsham,  '1  IJoav.  7»>;  IJaki-r  r. 


♦  Butler  T.  Haskell.  4  Dessau.  051 ;  McCormick  r.  Malin,  5  Blarkf.  50:]; 
nii.'li!>erger  r.  Stillkr,  21  Md.  338;  Ilalktt  r.  Collins,  10  IIow.  174;  Hunch 
r.  Hurst.  3  Dessau.  273;  Brogden  r.  Walker,  2  II,  &  J.  2S.j;  Whtlan  v. 
Whelan.  3  Cow.  537;  KeeMc  r.  Cummins,  5  Iley.  43;  King  r.  Colion,  0 
Ycrir.  l-t:  Mason  r.  Williams.  :'.  :Munf.  120;  Wliipph-  r.  JlcCIure,  2  Root. 
21G;  McDaniel  r.  Moorman,  1  Harp.  Cli.  108;  Rutiurlonl  r.  Kull',  4  Dessau. 
350;  James  r.  Lanj;  Ion,  7  B.  :Mon.  193;  Brice  r.  Brice,  5  Barl)  533 ;  Tnicey 
r.  Sat-kctt,  1  Ohio  St.  B.  54;  Cook  r.  Cole,  2  Halst.  Cli.  522,  C77;  Crad- 
d«)ck  r.  Caljines?,  1  Swan,  474;  Kelly  r.  McGuire,  15  Ark.  555;  Freeland 
r.  EI<lritl.'re,  Ifl  Mo  325;  Freeman  v  Durjr<iin,  2  Jones'  Ya\.  1G2;  Hill  r. 
McLaurin,  28  Miss.  288;  Marshall  r.  BlliJHgslea,  7  Ind.  250;  Martin  r. 
Martin,  35  Ala.  500;  Franklin  r.  ICidenour,  5  Jones'  Ya\.  420. 

By  weakness  of  mind  is  meant  a  sort  of  mental  imbecility  approaching 
to  the  condition  of  one  who  is  actually  non  comjms  meutU  and  unalogoua 
lo  childishness  and  dotage.     Owing's  case,  1  Bland,  370. 

The  only  point  of  inquiry  is  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  grantor's 
mind  at  the  time  of  executing  the  instrument.  IJickwith  r.  lUitler,  1 
Wa-h.  (Vu.)  224. 

A  court  of  equity  will  not  impute  fraud  merely  liccausc  one  party  is 
more  intelligent  than  the  other,  although  the  bargain  may  turn  out  :idvan- 
tngeously  to  the  wi.ser  party.  Faniani  r.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212;  Annan  r 
Stout,  42  Penn  114;  Thomas  r.  Shtpperd,  2  McCord's  Ch.  30;  Mann  r. 
Betterly,  21  Vt.  320. 

Courts  will  not  measure  the  degree  of  a  man's  unthrsfanding,  but  they 
will  scrutinize  all  the  transactions  of  persons  of  weidv  niind.s.  Connnt  r. 
Juckson,  10  Yt.  335;  Hadley  r.  Latimer,  3  Yerg.  537. 

Great  distresH  of  nund  and  a  proffer  of  os-istance  arc  circiunstanres 
that  will  be  considered  in  d<  termining  wlu-ther  a  trans  iction  i.s  fraudulent. 
Diamukcs  r.  Terry,  Walk.  107;  WilMin  r.  Watt.-*,  SI  >bl.  350. 


ruAii)  I'Kr.suMKi).  115 

pliowii  tliat  llif  trai'.s.'icf idii  was  lor  liis  own  licncfit,  that  no 
coorcioii  or  iiiijKisilinii  was  iisi-il,  and  that  ho  knew  clearly 
what  lit'  was  (ioiiiii;*  and  so  an  cxcciitctl  contract,  where  jmr- 
tics  have  been  dealing  iiiirlj  and  in  i:^^iiorancc  of  the  Innacy, 
will  not  he  set  aside,  if  injnsticc  wonld  be  done  to  the  other 
side  and  tlie  ]iai-tie.s  cannot  be  ])laccd  in  nidtu  quo,  or  in  the 
])0siti(in  in  wliicli  f hey  stood  before  tlie  transaction."  j!iit  this 
rule  is  not  applicable  to  a  case  where  tlie  (jm-stion  is  whether 
the  deed  of  a  lunatic  altering;  the  jjrovisions  of  a  settlement  is 
invalid.^ 

The  same  rule  prevails  at  law.  To  prove  lunacy  is  not 
enough  to  avoid  a  contract.  A  contract  entered  into  hona  fide 
and  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  is  not  void  by  reason 
of  one  of  the  parties  having  been  at  the  time  a  lunatic*  To 
vitiate  the  contract,  it  must  appear  that  the  other  j^arty  was 
aware  of  the  fact  of  lunacy  and  took  advantage  of  it.' 

A  party  claiming  under  a  deed,  is  not  bound  to  jirove  the 
sanity  of  the  per^on  executing  it.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  on 
the  other  side." 

Independently  of  tluit  degree  of  imbecility  which  will 
render  a  man  legally  noii  compos,  a  conveyance  may  be 
impeached  ior  mere  weakness  of  intellect,  provided  it  be 
coupled  with  other  circumstances  to  show  that  the  weakness, 
such  as  it  is,  has  been  taken  advantage  of  by  the  other  party  ; 
but  the  mere  foct  that  a  man  is  of  weak  understanding  or  is  in 
intellectual  capacity  below  the  average  of  mankind,  if  there  be 
no  fraud,  or  no  undue  advantage  be  taken,  is  not  of  itself  an 


•  Selby   f.    Jackson,    6   Beav.    192,  f.  Pcrrincrton,  3  Jfac.  tt  G. -IRO ;  Camp 

204.     Si'O   Townrt   r.    Sellers,  5  Dow,  bell  c  Hooper.  '^  Sm.  ct  (J.  ir>;>. 
231  ;  Nelson  v.  Duncombe.  9  IJeav.  211 ;  '  Elliott  v,  Inee,  7  1>.  M.  k  V,,  475. 

ynook  c.  Watts,   11    Ileav.   105;  bted-  *  Molton  r.  Canmmx.  4  Exch.  17. 

man  1'.  Hart,  Kuv,  (■■n7.  *  Beavan    r.  McDonnell,    lo  E.\ch.. 

"  Niell   V.  Morley,  9  Ves.  478,  4S2;  184. 
Williams  v.  Wentworth,  5  Bcav.  32.5 ;  •  Jacobs  v  Richards,  18  lieav.  305. 

Jacobs  I'.  Richards,  ISBeav.  oOO;  Price 


14G 


I'UAri)  imm:simi:i). 


ntlo»iuate  •ground  to  set  asit.le  :i  traiisactioii.*  *  Till  a  inaii  bo 
doflarcil  li'ijally  non  compos,  a  (KtiI  cM-ciitcd  l»y  liim  is  good.' 
The  coininon  law  has  not  drawn  any  discriniiiiatiiii:  line  by 
winch  to  dc'terniine  how  great  ninst  he  the  inihecility  of  mind 
to  render  a  transaction  void  and  how  much  intellect  is  ncees- 
Barv  to  snpp<»rt  it.^  Tiu'  houiidarirs  ln-tween  actual  insanity 
and  irreat  mental  weakness  are  so  verv  narntw  that  the  court 
must  judge  of  this  in  each  case  u])on  facts  and  circuinstances.'f 
With  regard  to  what  shall  constitute  mental  capacity,  the 
rule  in  etpiity  is  the  same  as  the  rule  at  law.  "  There  cannot," 
said  Lord  Ilardwicke,  in  Bennett  v.  AVadc,'  "he  two  rules  of 
judging  in  law  and  in  equity  upon  the  point  of  insanity  ;"  and 
in  Osmond  v.  Fit/roy,"  the  Master  of  tlie  Kolls  said  there  was 


'  Blnrhford  v.  Cliristiiin,  1  Knnpp, 
T3 ;  I{:ill  »•.  Mannin,  3  liligh,  N.  S.  1,  1 
Dow.  A  n.  .'{81. 

»  Osmoml  r.  Fitzroy,  3  P.  Wms.  129. 
Soo  Uartuiilc  v.  Islicrwooil,  1  liro.  C.  O. 
6:.y  ■.  Jaciib-s  ('.  Uiiliiinla.  18  Ik-iiv.  300. 
Coinp.  Evuiis  I'.  Blood,  3  Bro  V.  C. 
6;J2. 

'  Jnckson  v.  Kinfj,  4  Cow.  (Amor.), 
207 ;  Manby  r.  Bowicke,  3  IC  <&  J. 
812. 

♦  Bunnott  v.  \V:ul.«,  9  Mod.  315.  Sco 
White  «'.  Small,  2  Cli.  Ca.  103;  Bell  i'. 
lioward,  'J  Mod.  802;  iiuddon  v.  Beau- 


champ.  3Blii;li.  20  D.;  Addis  r.CampboU. 
4  Bfjiv.  4<»|  ;  llarrod  r.  llarrod.  1  K.  «fc 
.1.  7  ;  Lidif^mate  v.  LodijiT,  2  Giff.  h)3  ; 
Clarke  v.  Sawyer,  3  Sandf.  (Amer. ), 
357.  See,  as  to  want  of  assent  arising 
from  partial  insanity,  monomania,  de- 
lusion, itc,  ite.,  l)ew  1'.  Clarke,  5  lluss. 
lt>7;  Waring  v.  Warin;;,  6  Moo.  P.  C. 
341  ;  Creaijh  r.  Blood.  2  .1.  A'  L.  50S>. 
See  also  Steeil  r.  Calley,  1  Keen,  620. 

'  2  Atk.  327. 

•3  r.  Wins.  130. 


♦  Wilson  ».  Watts,  9  mi  350  ;  Smith  v.  Bcatty,  2  Iretl.  Eq.  4.')0  ;  Far- 
nam  r.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212;  Simeon  v.  Wilson,  3  Eilw.  Cli.  30;  Owintj'g 
Casi-.  1  Bland.  I'.TO ;  Clark  r.  Clark,  3  Hey,  23;  Day  r.  Seiley,  17  Vt,  542; 
Whitihorn  r.  Ilitu-s,  1  Muiit.  557;  McCruw  v.  Davis,  2  Irod.  Eq.  618 ; 
Buffalow  r.  Buiraiow,  2  Dcv.  A:  Bat.  Kq.  211;  Yoiiii;,'  r.  Stevon.s,  4H  N.  H. 
133;  Hippy  r.  CJraiit,  4  Irud.  Eq.  443;  Spraguc  r.  Duel,  11  Paii;c,  480 ; 
Mace  r.  Boycr,  30  Pcnn.  99;  Ousa  v.  Mason,  4  Siiei'd,  497 ;  Walton  c. 
Wortliinnton,  5  Hncod,  282 ;  DiiviH  v.  McNalloy,  5  Snood,  383. 

Apo'^ition  in  a  coiirt  of  justice  foundoil  upon  what  is  in  olfict  the  stulti- 
firatiun  of  the  jfOfHon  \vhoa>*sum(H  that  j)ositi<)n  is  one  to  be  considered 
with  much  dillidcnce.     Eyre  r  Poitor,  15  llnw.  13. 

t  Uwin;,''»  Case,  1  Blan«l.  370;  Harding  r.  Handy,  11  Wheal.  103; 
Young  r.  Stevens,  48  N.  II.  133. 


FKAi  I)  i'i:i;si  .Mi;i*.  1J7 

no  such  tiling  as  an  (.'(juituMu  incapacity,  wlivrc  tlicre  was  u 
Ic^al  ca|»acity.* 

IfiiiiKiu  In-  (Inink  1(»  the  extent  of ciniii'lrtc  intoxication, 
so  as  to  he  no  Inimci-  under  tliu  ^Miidance  ol"  re:i.son,  or  is  in  a 
state  of  excitement  from  excessive  drinkin;^,  almost  amonntin;^ 
to  madness,  any  transaction  wliicli  he  may  enter  into  while  lie 
is  in  that  state  is  invalid."  If,  however,  the  degree  of  intoxi- 
cation falls  fliort  of  sncli  conij)lete  intoxication,  he  cannot  have 
relief,  unless  it  appear  that  he  was  di-a\vn  in  to  drink  by  the 
contrivance  of  the  other  party,  and  that  an  unfair  advantai^o 
was  taken  of  Ids  sitnati(»n.^t  The  rule  at  law  on  the  subject 
agrees  with  the  rule  in  c(pnty.^ 

The  rule  is  the  same  Loth  at  law  and  in  equity  with  respect 
to  the  general  incapacity  of  infants  to  enter  into  a  binding  con- 
tract. A  man  who  enters  into  a  contract  during  his  minority 
is  not  cither  at  law  or  in  equity  bound  thereby  after  his 
majority  on  the  mere  ground  that  without  any  false  assertion 

•  See  Manby  v.  Bewicke,  3  K.  <fe.  J.  539;  Wiltshire  ?•.  Marshall.    1}   W.  R. 

342.  0'»2.     Soc   Addis   )•.  ( 'aiiiiibfll,  4  iJcav. 

"  Cory  V.  Cory,  1  Vcs.  19;   Cooke  ?■.  401  ;   Martin   v.  Pycmlt,  2  D  M.  <fe  (;. 

Clnyworth,  IH  Ves.  Ifi ;  Snv )'.  liiirwick,  8ui);   Gardner   v.   Gardner,  22   Wend. 

1    V.    A-  n.  195;   BntliT  I'.'Mulvihill,  1  (Anicr.),  526. 

Bli^h,  l-M  ;  Liglitfoot  v.  llrron,  :i  Y.  <fc  '  Gore  v.  Gibson,  13  JI.  <t  W.  623, 

C.  686;  Nagle  r.  Baylor,  3  Dr.  ik  War.  626;   Molton   v.  Camroux,   4  Exch.  17, 

60;   Shaw  v.   Thackeray,  1  Sm.   tk  G.  19;  Hawkins  v.  Bone,  4  F.  <k  F.  313. 


♦Prentice  v.  Achom,  2  Pais^e,  30;  "Wiprglesworth  v.  Steer.-;,  1  II.  S:  M. 
70;  Hutchinson  v.  Brown,  1  Clark,  408;  Crane  v.  Conklin,  Saxton,  346; 
Morrison  r.  McLcoa,  2  Dcv.  &  Bat  Ch.  221 ;  Ilutcliinson  v.  Tindal,  2  Green's 
Ch.  357;  Cruise  r.  Christopher,  5  Dana,  181  ;  French  v.  French,  8  Ohio, 
214;  Galloway  v.  Witherspoon,  5  Ired.  Eq.  128;  Phillips  v.  Moore,  11  Mo. 
600. 

Habitual  drunkenness,  in  the  absence  of  undue  advantage,  is  not  suffi- 
cient ground  for  setting  aside  an  instrument.  Reinicker  p.  Smith,  2  H.  & 
J.  421. 

t  White  r.  Cox,  3  Hey.  79  ;  Belcher  r.  Belcher,  10  Yerg.  121  ;  Hotchkiss 
r.  Fortson,  7  Yerg.  67  ;  Maxwell  r.  Pettinger.  2  Green's  Ch.  l.")0  ;  Bodnian  i: 
Gilley,  Saxlon,  320;  Whitesides  r.  Greenlee,  2  Dev.  Ch.  152;  GriJiith  e. 
Frederick  Co.  Bank,  6  G.  &  J.  424 ;  Dunn  c.  Amoss,  14  Wis.  106. 


118 


ri;Ai  1)  ri::.>i?iir.D. 


on  his  part  the  other  jmrty  la-lievcd  him  t.t  l)i'  of  a^^'c'  V<u\  if 
an  infant  hy  a  falso  and  frauilulent  rcprcbentatiun  that  lie  is  of 
full  airi>  iiulnces  a  man  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  hiui,  he  is 
hound  in  e<iuity,'  although  he  is  not  liahh'  at  law/  •''■  Infancy 
is  not  in  ecjuity  an  excuse  for  fraud.  An  iiifai.t  who  is  old 
and  cuiinini;  ciiouirh  to  contrive  or  carry  on  a  fraud  is  bound 
in  the  same  manner  as  if  he  were  an  adult.*  It  is  not  neces- 
sary that  lie  should  actively  encourai^'e  fraud.  It  is  enough  if 
lie  be  privy  to  it.  If  an  infant  knowinri^  his  rights  stands  by 
and  seeing  another  in  treaty  for  the  imrchaseof  his  estate  gives 
no  notice  of  his  title,  he  will  not  be  i)erniitted  afterwards  to 
avoid  the  purchase.' f  An  infant  cannot  be  allo.ved  by  a 
court  of  equity  to  take  advantage  of  his  own  fraud."  Where 
an  infant  had  obtained  from  a  creditor  of  liis  wife  two  promis- 
sory notes,  in  which  he  was  indebted  to  him  before  marriage, 
on  giving  his  bond  to  the  creditor,  he  was  ordered  to  give 
back  the  notes  on  his  pleading  infancy  when  sued  on  the 
bond.' 

At  law  a  married  woman  is  under  an  absolute  incapacity  to 
bind  herself  by  any  engagement.  Her  separate  existence  is 
not  contemplated,  but  is  merged  by  the  coverture  in  that  of 
the  husband.     Ihit  in  e(piity  the  ca.>e  is  wholly  ditlereiit.     Her 

'  Stikemnn  r.  Da-.vson,  1  Dig.  tt  Sm.  riiiiliurst.   9    Kxcli.    422;    I>artlett   v. 

105.  W.ll^.  1  R  Ji  S.  sue. 

•Tory    f.    r.crtikcn,    2    Mudd.   40;  MVutts  i.  Cnsswell.  9  Vin.  Ab.  415  : 

Wriclit"  r.  Snow.',  '.J   l>i-:r-  A   !^">-  321  ;  F.vniy  >•.  Nieliolns.  2    Kq.  Ca.  Ali.  4ti9; 

i:r-j>(xrte    I'liily    Hank,   ;t    I>.  it   J.  <">:t ;  Arnot   r.   Hisc-oc,    1    Vc-*.  '.•.'•; /xr  Lonl 

Ilannitli     v.     llfxltjson,     .';ii     llfiiv.    2:j.  lianhvirkt'.  Hcckftt  r.  l'i>nlli'y,  1    Hrt). 

»  oiiip.    J-.'rjMirte    Tiivlor,  H  I>.  M.  tt  IJ.  I'.  ('.  :!.'>S  ;  but  m-c  SuumUrson  r.  Murr, 

254  ;  Ni1m.ii  i-.  Stockcr,  4  1).  &  J.  45S;  1  H.  HI.  76. 
but  HOC  Bartlett  f.    Wells,   1    IJ.  A   S.  *  Savn-^o  v.  Foster.  9  Mod.  37. 

83fi.  •  llurko  V.  t'obli-y,  2  Vox.  17:1. 

»  Johniwin  V.  Vyo,  1    Sid.  258.  1  K.;!).  '  I/>.     Sue  Jones "r.  Kenrnoy,  1  Dr.  «k 

913;   LiveriKX*!  Adciphl  Associntioii  r.  War.  100. 


•  Brown  r.  McC'iiiic.  r»  S:in<lf.  221;  Conroo  r.  IJinisall.  1  Johns.  127; 
IJurl.y  r.  Hi:k.s<  11,  H)  N.  11.  1^1  :  Sloolfoos  r.  Ji-nkiv.s,  12  S.  A-  1{.  :}90. 

tlluntir  r.  Fostir,  4  Humph.  211  ;  Hall  r.  Timmons,  2  Uirh.  Kq.  120; 
WUi'.tinglon  r.  Wright,  0  Geo.  23;  llarham  r.  Tubtrville,  1  Swan,  437. 


ri;.\(  1)  ruiisiMr.i).  1 1'j 

8C{);irate  cxistoiict",  bulli  as  iv;^anl.->  liur  liubilitii-s  and  lier 
ri<,Mits,  is  acknowledged  in  equity  to  tlie  extent  of  the  jd'operty 
wliicli  she  eMJdy.-^  I'or  her  sejtarate  u>v.  In  rc^jicct  ui'  huch 
property  she  is  eaj)ahle  of  disposition  and  of  doing  other  acts, 
as  if  she  were  iiftiue  aoh,'}  In  respect  of  ])r<)perty  not  settled 
to  her  separate  use,  a  married  woman  cannot  bind  herself  in 
equity  in  matter  of  contract  any  more  than  she  can  at  law,  but 
coverture  is  no  excuse  in  c(piity  for  a  traud.'*     The  acquies- 

*  Murray  v.  Bnrloe,  3  M.  «t  K.  220  ;  »  Snvnffo  v.  Foster.  9  Mod.  37  ;  Evnns 

Vnughtiii    V.     VuiiiltTdtc2;eii,    2    ])re\v.  v.     iJickia-ll,    0    Wa.     181;    per    Lord 

3711 ;  Johnson  v.  Gallaglier,  3  D.  F.  &,  Kldoii,    Vaugliaa    v.   Vauderstegvn,   2 

J.  494.  L>nj\v.  o7'J. 


♦  Sexton  V.  Wlieaton,  8  Wheat.  229  ;  ITimtcr  r.  Foster,  4  ITumph.  211  ; 
Cravens  v.  Booth,  8  Tex.  24:3;  Bailey  v.  Trammel,  27  Tex.  317;  Ikin  v. 
Heath,  6  How.  (Miss.)  238;  Couch  v.  Sutton,  1  Grant,  114. 

A  married  woman  can  not  be  made  perscmally  liaMe  for  a  fraud  com- 
mitted by  her,  even  ia  respect  to  the  .«alc  of  lier  separate  estate.  Curd  t. 
Dodd,  6  Bush,  081. 

The  contraet  of  a  married  woman  is  not  made  valid  by  the  fact  that 
she  represented  herself  to  be  single  at  the  time  she  gave  it,  and  thereby 
obtained  the  consideration  upon  which  it  was  given.  Keen  v.  Coleman, 
8'J  Penn.  2119. 

An  action  will  not  lie  against  a  husiiand  and  his  wife  for  her  false 
representation  that  she  was  a.  feme  sole  at  the  time  of  executing  a  contract, 
and  obtaining  the  consideration  therefor.  Keen  v.  Uartman,  48  Penn. 
497. 

Althouirh  a  married  woman  may  know  that  her  husband  is  obtaining 
credit  on  the  faith  of  her  proj^crty,  she  will  not  be  made  respon>il)li'  be- 
cause of  her  silence.  Bank  of  United  States  r.  Lee,  13  Pet.  lo7  ;  Hunter  v. 
Foster,  4  Humph.  211, 

A  married  woman  is  not  estopped  from  asserting  her  claim  to  i>roperty 
on  account  of  a  fraud  committed  by  her  husband,  unless  it  is  further 
shown  that  she  participated  in  his  deceitful  conduct.  Galling  c.  Rodman, 
G  Ind.  289. 

The  doctrine  of  estojipel  by  more. omission  to  assert  one's  rights  does 
not  apply  to  the  wife  when  her  husi>and  makes  an  unauthorized  use  of 
her  property  in  her  presence.  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  382  ;  Mcintosh  c. 
Smith,  2  La.  An.  75G ;  Palmer  v.  Cross,  1  Smed.  &  Mar.  43. 

Positive  acts  of  encouragement  that  sometimes  operate  to  estop  ono 
sui  generis,  will  not  affect  one  under  a  legal  disability.  Glid<len  r.  Strip- 
pier,  52  Penn.  400. 


ir»0  rUAl  I)    I'llKSlMHl). 

ccncc  however  of  :i  iiKirritd  uoinan  in  a  transaction  will  not 
l.inil  Ijor,  if  tho  i)ors*on  witli  whom  tlio  trant^action  was  entered 
into  ktu'w  tliat  she  was  a  married  woman.** 

Tlie  i>rineii)le  wliieli  vitiates  a  contraet  witli  an  ineai)aei- 
tatcd  person  lias  been  extended  in  ecinity  to  cases  where  from 
the  iHH'iiliar  n-laticn  wliit-li  sulisists  between  the  jiarties,  or 
from  the  intluenee  which  the  one  l>arty  has  accjuired  over  the 
other,  the  freedom  of  action  which  is  essential  to  the  validity 
of  all  transactions  is  overcome,  and  the  eqnal  footing  on  which 
parties  to  a  transaction  shonld  stand  is  destroyed.' 

If  the  relation  between  the  parties  is  one  of  a  fiduciary  na- 
ture, transactions  between  them  are  watched  by  a  court  of 
equity  with  more  than  ordinary  jealousy.  The  duty  of  a  per- 
son who  fills  a  fiduciary  position  being  to  protect  the  interests 
which  arc  confided  to  his  care,  he  may  not  avail  himself  of  the 
influence  which  his  position  gives  him  for  the  purposes  of  his 
own  benefit,  and  to  the  prejudice  of  those  interests  which  he  is 
bound  to  protect.  It  is  a  rule  of  equity  that  no  man  can  be 
pennitted  to  take  a  benefit  where  he  has  a  duty  to  perform 
which  is  inconsistent  witli  his  acceptance  of  the  benefit.' 
Wherever  two  persons  stand  in  such  a  relation  that,  while  it 
continues,  confidence  is  necessarily  rejiosed  by  the  one  and  the 
influence  which  naturally  grows  out  of  that  confidence  is  pos- 
sessed by  the  other,  and  this  confidence  is  abused  or  the  influ- 
ence is  exerted  to  obtain  an  advantage  at  the  expense  of  the 
confiding  party,  the  ])erson  so  availing  himself  of  his  position 
will  not  be  permitted  to  retain  the  advantage,  although  the 


•  Nicholl  f.  .)(,n(^.  '.'.r,  L.  J.  rii.  r.r.l.  I.oninnnto  <:  l.aV^or,  2   (ulT.  l.'.?;  Bnr- 

»  Sf.'  CnflM.rnL-  v.  i;iir.-luim,  2   15inv.       rt-tt  r  lluitlcy.  L.  K.  2  i:«|.  TK'.i. 
76 ;    Kdwnrds   v.  Mi-yrick,  2  llo.  t,o ;  *  UobiiiHoii  f.  I'ctt,  3  1*.  Wmu.  249. 


•  WUks  V.  Fitzpatrjck,  1  Humph.  54;  Glidilcn  r.  StriiipUr,  52  Pcnn. 
400. 


rilAI  I)    IMJr.SIMIJ).  l."il 

transaction  coiilil  Tint  Imvo  been  imj)eached  if  no  sucli  confiden- 
tial ri'latidii  liatl  sultsistcd.* 

The  rnlo  of  c(|uity  'vvliifli  ])roliibit8  a  iiiaii,  avIio  fills  a 
position  of  a  fiduciary  character,  from  taking  a  benefit  from 
the  person  towards  whom  he  stands  in  such  a  relation,  stands 
upon  a  motive  of  general  public  policy,  irrespective  of  the 
particular  circumstances  of  the  case.  The  rule  is  f(;unded  on 
considerations  as  to  the  difficulty  which  must,  from  the  con- 
dition of  the  parties,  cjenerally  exist,  of  obtaining  positive 
evidence  as  to  the  fairness  of  transactions  which  ai-e  j)eculiarly 
open  to  fraud  and  undue  influence.  The  policy  of  the  rule  is 
to  shut  the  door  against  temptation.' 

The  rule  docs  not,  however,  go  the  length  of  avoiding  all 
transactions  between  parties  standing  in  a  fiduciary  relation, 
and  those  toward  Avliom  they  stand  in  such  relation.  All  that 
a  court  of  equity  requires  is,  that  the  confidence  which  has 
been  reposed  be  not  betrayed.  A  transaction  between  them 
will  be  supported,  if  it  can  be  shown  to  the  satisfiiction  of  the 
court  that  the  parties  were,  notwithstanding  the  relation, 
substantially  at  arms'  length  and  on  an  equal  footing,  and  that 
nothing  has  happened  which  might  not  have  happened,  had 
no  such  relation  existed.  The  burden  of  proof  lies,  in  all 
cases,  upon  the  party  who  fills  the  position  of  active  con- 
fidence, to  show  that  the  transaction  has  been  fair.  If  it  can 
be  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  the  other  party 
had  competent  and  disinterested  or  independent  advice,  or 
that  he  performed  the  act  or  entered  into  the  transaction 
voluntarily,  deliberately  and  advisedly,  knowing  its  nature 
and  efiect,  and  that  his  consent  was  not  obtained  by  reason  of 


'  Tate   V.    WilliamsoD,  L.  P,  2  Ch.  thorn,  1  Y.  «fe  C.  C.  C.  342  ;  Van  Eppa 

App.  61.  '■•  Van    Epps,    9   Paicje  (Am<r.),  241; 

"  Home  V.  Mecres,  1  Vern.  465  ;  Ay-  Ahcrdccn    Railway    Lo.   v.   liluikie,    1 

hSo  V.  Murray,  2  Atk.  59  ;  Robinson *»•.  Macq.  401. 


Pett,  3  P.  "Wms.  251  ;  Benson  v.  Ilea- 


1.V2 


riLMi)  riti-.siMr.i). 


tlie  power  tif  inlhioncc  to  wl>ich  tlu*  nlation  jjavc  rise,  the 
transact ioji  will  be  supixtrtrd.^  A  man  stamlinLT  in  a  iidiuMury 
relation,  it'  tlealin^  with  the  conlidinj;  ]':irty,  is  bound  to 
c'oniinunicato  all  the  information  he  has  ai'tjnired  resj>ectin^ 
the  I'l-njierty,  the  snhjeet  (»t'  the  transaction,  which  it  was 
material  lor  him  to  kiMw,  in  onicr  to  enahle  him  to  judge  of 
the  value  of  the  projierty.' 

The  ]»rincii)les  which  govern  the  case  of  dealings  of 
persons  standing  in  a  iiduciary  relation  apply  to  tlic  case  of 
persons  who  clothe  tlienisclvcs  with  a  character  which  brings 
them  within  the  i-ange  of  the  ]>riiiciple,''  or  who  take  instru- 
ments, securities  or  moneys  with  notice  that  they  have  been 
obtained  by  a  person  tilling  a  j)osition  of  a  iiduciary  cliaracter 
from  a  i)erson  towards  whom  he  stands  in  such  relation.* 

In  judging  of  the  validity  of  transactions  between  persons 
standing  in  a  confidential  relation  to  each  other,  the  material 
point  to  be  considered  is,  whether  the  person  conferring  a 
benefit  had  competent  and  indei)endent  advice.  The  age  or 
capacity  of  the  person  conferring  the  benefit,  and  the  nature 
of  the  benefit,  are  of  little  importance  in  such  cases.  They 
are  important  only  where  no  such  confidential  relation  exists." 
The  general  princi]»le,  however,  as  to  the  incapacity  of  a 
person  who  stands  in  a  fiduciary  relation  to  take  a  benefit 
from  the  party  towards  whom  he  stands  in  such  a  relation, 


•  Oibpon  f.  Jcyes,  6  Vcs.  278;  Giil- 
din-^H  V.  Giildini;**,  'i  Hubs.  211  ;  Naylor 
V.  Winrh.  2  I..  .1.  lit.  f:{.'..  7  1..  .1.  «  fi.  f>; 
Hunter  v.  AtkiiiR,  '.i  M.  A  K.  li:(:  Ciih- 
borne  «•.  Uiir»linm,  2  ]irnv.  7'J ;  Timuut 
r.  Klworthy,  4  lU-av.  •1S7  ;  (Jrctnliiw  v. 
Kiii)r,  10  L.  J.  <'li.  12'.t;  Kilwiinis  r. 
Mevrick.  2  lift.  f.«  ;  \\n\-m  ••.  liail.y.  2 
Y.'dt  C.  C.  «'.  2r.»;  Kiiitrlil  «•.  Mnrjori 
banks.  3  II.  A-  Tw.  :il.l;  Hillii-..  .-. 
SouMifO,  0  Iltl.  ftlO;  H(.i,'litoii  r.  llo;;li- 
t'ln,  ir.  IWv.  2H8;  Allfnv  «'.  Allfn-v.  1 
Mwc.  &  (;.  »9;  Smith  t/Kny.  7  II!  k 
7ftU;  Uliodc«r.  liut«,  L.  U.  fCli.  Aj-p. 


2r.2 ;  Tnto  v.  Williamson.    L.  R.  2  Cb. 
Apit.  .^^). 
••'  //.. 

*  Tuto  V.  Williamson,  L.  11.  2  Cli.  Ann. 
65. 

*  Aril;;lii.s8c  v.  I'iit,  1  Vorn.  2.18  ;  Mo- 
lony  I'.  KiTtinn,  2  !>r.  it  Wnr.  .'il  ;  Ks|M!y 
f.  i.ako,  !(•  IIii.  2i°ii):  nuriloo  i'.  l)nwson, 
:;i  n.-av.  r.tCI;  Ki.ll'o  V.  (Jr.iji'ry,  HI  L. 
J.  Ch.  27.')  ;  WvHc  v.  I,:iiiil)crt.  \(\  Ir. 
(II.  '.il'J.  Coni'p.  lUiodoH  V.  Hate,  L.  R. 
1  Ch.  A|>p.  2rtn. 

*  Uliodcs  I',  lioto,  L.  U.  1  Ch.  App. 
252. 


FRAUD  rRi:.sr:\n:i).  153 

admits  of  BOino  liiiiitutiun.  A  incru  trlllin;^'  ^nll  to  .1  person 
stiiiidin^  in  a  cunlideiitial  rchitioii,  or  u  iiiltu  trilliii*^  li;il)ility 
iacunvd  in  favor  of  such  person,  cannot  stand  in  tliu  hanie 
position  as  a  i^nll  of  a  man's  -vvliolu  pnipcrty,  or  a  liability 
involving'  it,  would  stand  in.  In  such  cases  the  c<»nrt  will 
not  interfere  to  set  tlicni  aside  upon  the  mere  fact  of  a  con- 
tidcntial  relation,  and  the  absence  of  j)roof  of  competent  and 
independent  advice.  The  court  requires,  before  it  will  undo 
the  benefit  conferred,  some  proof  not  merely  of  inHuence 
derived  from  the  relation,  but  of  mala  Jides^  or  of  undue  or 
unfair  exercise  of  the  influence.^ 

After  the  termination  of  the  fiduciary  relation,  it  is  open 
to  the  parties  to  deal  on  the  same  terms  as  strangers  ; '  but  if 
a  relation  of  confidence  he  once  established,  either  some 
positive  act  or  some  complete  act  of  abandonment  must  be 
shown  in  order  to  determine  it.  The  mere  fact  that  the 
relation  is  not  called  into  existence  is  not  sufficient  of  itself 
to  determine  it.^  If  the  confidential  relation  between  the 
parties  has  not  terminated  at  the  commencement  of  the 
negotiation,  the  principles  which  govern  the  case  of  dealin"-s 
between  parties  standing  in  a  fiduciary  relation  continue  to 
operate.*  Although,  indeed,  the  confidential  employment 
may  have  ceased,  the  disability  a\  ill  continue  so  long  as  the 
reasons  on  which  it  is  founded  continue  to  operate.'  A  man 
for  instance,  who  has  in  the  course  of  a  fiduciary  employment 
acquired  some  peculiar  knowledge  as  to  the  property  of  his 
employer,  cannot,  after  the  cessation  of  the  relation,  use  the 
knowledge  so  acquired  for  his  own  benefit,  and  to  the 
prejudice   of  the   other."     Ihit   although  a  person  may  have 

•  Rhodes  v.  Cnte.  L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  212.  *  Tate  v.  Williamson,  L.  R.  2 Ch.  App 
Sep.Beasleyr.  Mnirrnth,  2  Scli.it  Lef.  35.       65, 

"  Tate  V.  Williiiinson,  L.  11.  2  Cii.  App.  *  Cnrtcr  v.  r.ilmor,  8  CI.  <t  Fin.  fi57. 

65;  SCO  Hcadeii  i-.  King,  9  Ila.  5:52.  '  Ih. ;  Uolmau  v.  Lovms,  4  1),  M   it 

*  Rhodes  I'.  Bate,  L.  R.   1  Ch.  App.  G.  270 
260. 

11 


154  ri:Ari>  ri:!:siMi:i). 

been  cmjilovrd  t^r  cunsulted  on  ((iic  occjisioii,  lliis  will  not  of 
itself  oonstifiif(>  :i  confident inl  ivlaticii  in  n.-iKil  ol'  a  snhse- 
qucnt  trans;iction,  oecin-riiii;  at  a  luturi'  and  s.uiuwhat  distant 
time.* 

A  common  instanre  »>f  tlio  ajiplication  of  tlu^  ride  that  a 
man  wlio  tills  a  position  of  a  lidiiciary  cliaracter  cannot  derive 
a  benclit  from  the  ])erson  towards  whom  he  stands  in  sneh 
relation,  is  in  the  case  of  actual  trustees.  It  is  the  duty  of 
a  trustee  to  use  his  hest  exertions  for  the  advantaj,'e  of  the 
cestui  que  trust.  lie  may  not  jdacc  himself  in  a  situation 
in  which  his  interests  Mill  come  into  conllict  with  that  which 
his  duty  retjuires  him  to  do.  Any  personal  henelit  which 
he  may  ixain  by  availin<^  liimself  of  his  fiduciary  character 
must  be  ac(piired  by  a  dereliction  of  duty,  and  will  enure  for 
the  benefit  of  the  trust  estate.*  *     There  is  no  more  sacred 


*  Rhodes  ».  Bate,  L.  R.   1  Ch.  App.  80.     A  Icnso  obtti'iicd  by  n  trnstec  or 

259.  fxc'cutor  in  liis  own  nniiu-,  even  in  tho 

'  Ilolt  f.  Ilolt,  1   Cli.  Cft.  190;  Ex-  absence  of  frnud.  ami  upon  t lie  refusal 

parti-  Lacey, ft  Ves. ri2ri ;  yt>-y«;r/c. lames,  of  the  lessor  to  i^niiit  a  new  lease  to  th« 

8  Yes.  [i'.'.i,  ;M  I  ;  D'Albiac  v.  D'Albiac,  ciMul  i/ne  /;-//.v/, --lial!  l>e  held  upon  trust 

1')  Yes.  \'l-i ;   Hamilton  v.  Wri^^iit,  9  CI.  for  tlie  person  entitled  to  the  old  lonsc. 

A- Fin.  Ill;  lirouf^hton  c.  lirou^xhton,  5  Keeeh    v.    Sandford,  Sel.  C'a.  C'h.   CI; 

I).  M.  «fe  G.  IftJ ;   Yuuf,'hton  y.Kohle.MJ  While  v.  Tudor,  L.  C.  vol.  I,  \>.  10. 
Bcav.  34;  Crosskill  v.  IJower,  ^2  Ikav. 


*  Pamcy  r.  Saunders,  10  How.  5:}.^ ;  :\Iitciicll  v.  Mooro,  0  Hinh,  GSO; 
Van  Kpps  r.  Van  Epps,  I)  Paige,  237  ;  UrinUerhof  r.  Brown,  4  Johns.  C'h. 
C9:{ ;  Matter  of  Oakley,  2  Edw.  Ch.  478  ;  flyers  r.  Myers,  2  ^IcCord's  Ch. 
214  ;  Jaini.son  r.  Glascock,  21)  Me.  191. 

All  transactions  relating  to  the  trii>;t  estate  enure  to  the  benefit  of  tho 
rtMiii  tjuf  tru»t.  Freeman  v.  Ilarwood,  40  Me.  l!)j;  .Tewetl  r.  Miller,  10 
N.  Y.  402;  Ilrantly  r.  Key,  5  Jones'  Eij.  XVI ;  Paige  r.  Naglee,  G  t'al.  '^41  ; 
Lennox  r.  Notertbc,  1  Hemp.  U.^l ;  Spindler  r.  Atkinson,  8  Md.  4ii9;  Hill 
c.  "Wehl),  2  Gill,  10:J ;  Callis  r.  lUdout,  7  O.  &  J.  1  ;  Crulehliehl  r.  Hayiies, 
14  Ala.  49  ;  Green  c.  Winter,  1  Joints.  Ch.  27  ;  Hauley  r.  .Mareius,  7  Johns. 
Ch.  174;.Keaton  r.  Cold*-,  1  Dev.  Ch.  4:19;  IJoyd  r.  Hawkins,  2  I)ev.  Clu 
195;  M'CIanahan  r.  Hendirson,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  UbS;  Chapin  c.  Weed,  1 
Clarke,  464;  Slade  r.  Van  Veehtcn,  11  I'aii,'e,  21. 

A  purchivHc  of  the  tru-it  properly  is  valid  as  to  all  persons  except  tho 
ecttui  que  tnut.     Wilson  r.  Troup,  2  Cow.  105;  Painter  c.  Henderson,  7 


riiAi  I)  rui:srMKi).  l.-j.-} 

ruJc  of  equity  than  tliat  a  trustee!  cannot  m  execute  a  trust  as 


Barr,  48;  McKinloy  v.  Irvine,  13  Ahi.  031  ;  llaldwin  r.  Allison,  4  ;Minn.2."i ; 
Rice  V.  Clighorn,  20  Ind.  80. 

A  triistee  can  not  avoid  hi9.  purchase'  when  the  cestui  que  trust  is  satis- 
ficd.  He  can  only  file  a  bill  CMHiiiix  upon  the  nxtui  que  trnsf  to  confirm  or 
avoid  the  sale.  MeClure  v.  Miller,  Hailey's  Ch.  107;  Williams  r.  Marshall, 
4  G.  et  J.  niO;  Iliiffr.  Earl,  [i  lud.  ;J06. 

Tlio  option  of  the  rrntin  que  trust  to  follow  the  trust  fund  into  a  new 
investment,  or  to  hold  the  trustee  personally  liable  for  a  breach  of  the 
trust,  iH-lonys  to  him  exclusively,  and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  trustee 
to  deprive  him  of  it  by  a  repurchase  of  the  trust  proijerty.  Oliver  t.  Piatt, 
3  Uow.  ;};{:'.. 

A  sale  of  the  trust  property  to  a  corporation,  in  whieh  the  trustee  has 
a  large  interest,  is  voidable.     Koblnns  r.  Butler,  24  III.  387. 

Ily  claiming  the  proceeds,  the  cestui  que  trust  confirms  the  sale.  Pierce 
V.  Nesl)it,  1  Hill's  Ch.  445. 

In  considering  the  capacity  of  a  trustee  to  purchase  the  property  of 
his  cestui  que  trust,  the  authorities  may  be  regardeil  under  two  classifica- 
tions :  1st.  "Where  a  trustee  buys  or  contracts  with  hin)self,  or  several 
trustees  of  which  he  is  one,  or  a  board  of  trustees.  2d.  Where  the  deal- 
ing of  the  trustee  is  with  a  cestui  fjue  tj^sf,  who  is  sui  juris  and  competent 
to  deal  independently  of  the  trustee  in  respect  to  the  trust  estate.  The 
distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  cases  consists  in  this:  tliat,  in  the 
first,  the  contract  is  voidable  absolutely  at  the  instance  of  the  cestui  que 
trw.t^  without  regard  to  its  fairness;  whilst,  in  the  second,  although  the 
presumptions  of  law  are  against  the  contract,  yet  permission  is  given  to 
the  trustee  to  show  the  perfect  homi  Jides  of  the  transaction,  and  circum- 
stances relieving  it  from  the  censure  of  the  law.  This  is  a  distinction 
recognized  generally,  but  not  universally.  Some  of  the  cases  insist,  with 
great  earnestness,  that  the  goveming  prinrijile  ought  to  be,  and  is,  the 
same  in  both  classes.  Iloftnian  v.  Steam  Coal  Co.  r.  Cumberland  Coal  & 
Iron  Co.  IG  :\Id.  456  ;  Cumljcrland  Coal  Co.  t.  Sherman,  30  Barb.  533. 

The  doctrine  docs  not  apply  to  the  relation  of  i)rincipal  and  surety. 
Blow  V.  Ma^^lard,  2  Leigh,  20. 

While,  in  cases  of  pure  trust,  where  exclusive  jurisdiction  is  in  equity, 
resort  must  lie  had  to  that  tribunal  for  relief;  and  sometimes,  in  cases  of 
quasi  trust,  that  court  will  grant  relief  where  there  are  special  circum- 
stances requiring  it ;  yet,  where  the  relation  is  a  legal  relation,  and  it.s 
rights  and  duties  arc  defined  by  law.  the  remedies  for  the  violation  of 
such  duties  are  ordinarily  at  law.  ild.  Fire  lus.  Co.  r.  Dalrymple,  25  Md. 
242. 


i:,0  niAi  i»  ri:i-.srMi:i). 

to  have  the  least  benefit  fnim  it  Iiiiu.-tlf.' *  The  restraint  on 
any  lursiiiial  hiMu-iit  td  thi-  tnibtee  is  not  e<»nlin('<l  t<»  liis 
tiealinj^s  with  the  i'>tafr,  hut  extends  to  mmnu'ration  t'«>r 
services,  and  j)revents  liini  from  receiving  anytliin<;  l)eyond 
the  j>aynient  of  his  e.\})enses,  uidess  there  be  an  exi>rfss 
stipnhition  to  tlic  contrary.'  Tlierc  may  be  cxses  in  which 
the  court  will  establish  an  airrcement  made  with  a  trustee 
for  a  certain  allowance  beyond  the  term  of  liis  trust,  but  the 
court  will  be  extremely  cautious  and  wary  in  doin^]^  so.  The 
court  looks  upon  trusts  as  honorary,  and  a  burden  on  the 
honor  and  conscience  of  the  party,  and  nut  as  taken  with 
mercenary  motives.'  f 

But  there  is  no  rule  whieh  incapacitates  a  trustee  from 
dealini:  with  the  cetifui  que  trust  in  res]»cet  of  the  trust  estate. 
A  trustee  for  sale  may  purchase  the  trust  estate,  if  the  cedui 
qnc  trust  fully  and  clearly  imderstands  with  whom  he  is  deal- 
ing, and  makes  no  objection  to  the  transaction,  and  the  trustee 
fairly  and  honestly  discloses  all  that  he  knows  respecting  the 
property,  and  gives  a  just  and  fair  price,  and  docs  not  seek  to 


•  Forbes  «.  Ross,  2  Cox.  110.  v.  D.irbv.  2S  Benv.  :!2ri  ;  Crosskill  v. 

'  Robinson  r.   Pctt,  3  V.  Wnis.  210;  Hnwcr.  '■'••!  Mi-nv.  St\ ;  Barrett  v.   Hurt- 

Moore  r.  Frowd,  «  M.  .0  ('.   -If,;   Haiii-  ley.  I..  K.  '1  Va\.  7.S'.t. 
bricjsje  r.  Blair,  s  Bcnv.  .1X8  ;  BrMiiylitun  '  A\  lilli-  r.  Murray,  2  Atk.  59. 

V.  Bri'Ughton,  5  D. M.  <t  G.  ICO  ;  Harbin 


*  Michotul  r.  r.irofl,  4  How.  503 ;  Bank  of  Orleans  r.  Torrcy,  7  Ilill.  200 ; 
ConyiT  r.  Hinj?,  11  Barb.  350;  Murray  r.  VandtTbilt,  30  Barl).  110;  Sloo  p. 
Law,  «  Blfttcli.  4.">y. 

r  A  (liflTerrnt  ruli-  prevail.s  gcnonilly,  if  not  nnivcr.^ally,  in  this  country, 
litre  it  Ls  considLTftl  just  ami  rea.sonablc  that  a  trustee  should  receive  ft 
luir  compcnmition  for  hi.s  wrvices,  and,  in  most  casoH,  it  is  gauged  by  n 
r(  rtain  jKTccntagc  on  the  amount  of  the  estate.  But  a  tnntee  who  has 
a(tc<l  fraudulently  and  dis-lmncstly  is  not  entitled  to  the  same  ronjjiensa- 
tion  as  he  who  has  artnl  n;>ri;rlitly  ;  and  there  nmy  be  eases  where  nc;,'ii- 
gcncc  and  wont  of  rare  muy  amount  to  want  of  good  faith.  Barney  r. 
Baiindcrs,  10  llov.-.  r>33. 


FiiAii*  rKi;srMi;i).  157 

secure  snnejttifidu.sly  .'iiiy  a(lv;nir:iL;e  lor  liiiuscH",'*  lint  tlie 
transaction  becomes  iiii|teaclin1)le,  if  tliere  is  any  peeret  or 
uiidcrliaiHl  (IcaliiiLT  <'M  tlic  |i;iit  (»t"  tli(>  trnstcc.  liouevcr  lair 
it  niay  be  in  otlier  respects,  tlie  transact l(<ii  caiinnt  b(!  bhj)- 
ported,  if  tlie  ceshd  quetrud  (b»es  not  clearly  an<l  distinctly 
understajid  tliat  lie  is  dealinf;^  \s\\\\  tbc  trustee.  A  trustee 
cannot,  under  any  circumstances,  be  allowed  to  deal  with 
himself  on  behalf  of  the  cestui  que  tritst  surrc])titiously  and 
without  hid  knowledge  and  assent.  It  is  immaterial  that  he 
may  take  no  advanta/jjc  from  the  bargain.  It  may  be  that  the 
terms  on  which  he  attempts  to  deal  with  the  trust  estate  are  afi 
good  as  conld  have  been  olttaincd  from  any  other  quarter. 
They  may  even  be  better,  but  so  inllcxildo  is  iIk;  rule,  that  no 
inquiry  can  be  made  as  to  the  tairness  or  nnfairness  of  the  trans- 
action.    It  is  enough  that  the  act  has  a  tendency  to  interfere 

'  AylifTe    r.   Mnrrny,    2    Atk.    69;  Roynl,  12  Vos.  355;  Downes  r.  Grnzc- 

Clnrke'r.   Swnilo,  2  ed.   13t;   Ei-purie  bnwk,  3  Mer.  208;  Knif^lit  v.  Marji.ri- 

Lacej',  6  Ves.  620;   Fx-/iartc  Janits,  8  banks,  2  Mac.  tt  G.  10;  re  M'Kcnna,  13 

Ves.*3'l8;  Coles  c.  Trecotliick,  9  Ve-».  Ir.  Cli.  230;  Luff  /•.  Lord.  11  Jur.  N.  S. 

240;    A'j--/Jrtr/<'  Eennctt.   10  Vts.    381;  50;  iJover  r.  Buck,  (6.  060 
Kandall  v.  Erringtun,  ib.  422 ;  Morse  p. 


*  Richardson  r.  Spencer,  18  B.  Mon.  450;  Sallce  r.  Chandler.  2G  Mo. 
124 ;  Baxter  r.  Coston,  1  Busbee's  Eq.  2G2 ;  Kennedy  r.  Kennedy,  2  Ala. 
571 ;  Field  r.  Arrowsmith,  3  Humph  412;  Villincs  v.  Norflect,  2  Dev.  Ch. 
167;  Marshall  r.  Stephens,  8  Humph.  159;  Bryan  v.  Duncan,  11  Geo.  G7. 

A  trustee  cannot  become  a  purchtiser  of  the  trust  estate.  He  cannot 
be  both  vendor  and  vendee.  He  cannot  represent  in  himself  two  opposite 
and  conflictintT  interests.  Worniley  v.  "Wormley,  8  "Wheat.  421;  Caldwell 
V.  Taggart,  4  Pet.  190;  Hunt  v.  Bass.  2  Dev.  Eq.  292;  Quarles  v.  Larey,  4 
Munf  251;  De  Cater  t.  Lee  Roy  de  Chaumont,  3  Paige,  178;  Child  v. 
Brencr,  4  Paige,  309 ;  Campbell  r.  Johnson,  1  Sandf  Ch.  148 ;  Johnson  p. 
Bennett,  39  Barb.  237;  Charles  r.  Dul>ose,  29  Ala.  307  ;  Mason  v.  :M:irtin,  4 
Md.  124 ;  Wasson  r.  English.  13  Md.  170;  Armstrong  v.  Campbell,  3  Yerg. 
201 ;  MeGinn  r.  ShaeiVer,  7  Watts,  412 ;  Mattbeus  r.  Dezaud,  3  Dessau.  24 ; 
Thorp  V.  McCullum,  1  Gilman,  614. 

A  sale  by  a  trustee  to  his  cestui  que  trust  stands  on  the  same  footing  aa 
a  purchase  by  a  trustee  from  his  cestui  qm  trust.  McCarty  t.  Bee,  1 
McCorda  Ch.  383. 


15S 


rwAi  i>  ri:i;siMi;i). 


with  till'  duty  of  protcctinp^  tlic  trust  estate  wliicli  the  trustee 
1ms  taken  upon  liiniself  to  perforin.  The  policy  of  the  rule  is 
to  shut  the  tloor  against  tenij)tation.  It  makes  no  matter 
uhether  the  transaction  relates  to  real  estate,  or  i)ersonalty,  or 
mercantile  mattei-s,  for  the  disability  arises  not  from  the  sub- 
ject matter,  hut  fr.mi  the  ohliiration  under  which  a  trustee 
lies  to  do  his  utmost  for  the  cestui  que  trust}*  It  makes  no 
diflerence  in  the  application  of  the  principle  that  the  sale  ^vas 
by  public  auction,'^ f  or  that  the  jjurchase  was  nuule  through 
another  person,':}: -or  that  the  purchase  was  made  from  a  co- 
trustee,* §  or  that  the  trustee  may  have  purchased  as  agent  for 
another  person,"  j]  or  tliat  a   third   person    may,  by  previous 


•  Fox  V.  Mncrcth.  2  Bro.  C.  C.  400, 
2  Cox.  320.  4  l?ro.  \\  ('.  2r>S;  Ex-purte 
Lnc  •}•,  •>  Vcs.  027;  Kxjxuie  Jiiinos,  8 
Vi'S.  M4S;  Kxpiirte  IJoiiiU'lt,  10  Ves. 
8'J4;  U:indall  v.  Errini;toii,  ib.  423; 
Att.-(icn.  V.  Karl  of  C'liircrnlon,  17  Vcs. 
60<>;  (Jresforv  v.  (in-ijnrv.  Coop.  201  ; 
Woodhoiise  t'.  Mcrclitli,  I'j.  A  W.  222; 
Baker  r.  Carter.  1  Y.  it  C.  2.')0;  (Jrov.r 
r.  lliiirell.  3  Uiiss.  42S;  Hailey  ".  Wat- 
kins,  cit.  (j  Bliyh.  27.'i ;  re  Bloyo's Trust, 
1  Mae.  A  G.  4'.'0.  ali\l.  as  Lewis  r.  Hill- 
man.  3  II.  L.  G"7  ;  Knijjht  v.  Marjori- 
banks,  2  Mae.  6i  Ci.  12;  Ilaniiituii  v. 
Wriijlit.  y  (1  &.  Fin.  Ill;  lnj,'lo  v. 
Rielianls,  G  Jur.  N.  S.  117S;  l'oi)liaiii 
r.  Kxliani,  10  Ir.  Ch.  440;  Aberili-eti 
Railway  Co.  v.  lilnikie,  1  Maeq.  4fil  ; 
Parkiii-'>n  v.  llanluiry,  2  D.  J.  »t  S. 
45i);    Uidiey   v.    Kidley,   34   L.   J.   Ch. 


403;  Franks  v.  BoUans,  37  L.  J.  Ch. 
155. 

»  Campbell  v.  Walker,  li  Vca.  678  ; 
Ex-pnrte  James,  8  Ves.  348  ;  Ex-f>arle 
Bi'iineit,  10  Vcs.  393;  Sanderson  v. 
Walker.  13  Vcs.  002;  York  BuiMin;,'8 
Co.  r.  M'K'enzie,  8  Bro.  P.  C.  42,  3  Put. 
Sr.  Ap.  378  ;  Bailey  v.  Watkins,  eit.  6 
Blii^h,  275 ;  l)owne3  v.  (Jrazebrook.  3 
Mcr.  2n7;  Gruvcr  v.  Iluijell,  3  Uuss. 
42S  ;  Lawrence  t'.  Galswortliy,  3  Jur.  N. 
S.  104'.»;  Adams  v.  Sworder,  2  D.  J.  <k 
y.  44. 

*  Sanderson  i-.  Walker,  13  Ves.  602; 
Adams  i».  Sworder,  2  I).  J.  «k  S.  44. 

*  Hall  I'.  N..ycs,  cit.  3  Vcs.  748.  3 
Bro.  C.  C.  4S3;  Whicheoto  v.  Law- 
rence, 3  Vcs.  740. 

*  Exparle  Bennett.  10  Vea.  881, 
400;  Gri'vrory  v.  Gref;ory,  Coop.  201; 
Ex-pnrte  Urylls,  2  Dea.  «b  Ch.  290. 


*  Michoud  r.  Girod,  4  IIow.  50:1;  Narci.ssa  r.  "Wathan,  2  B.  .'\Ioii.  211  ; 
Rinf,';.'..!.!  r.  H in •:>,'. )bl,  1  H.  cV  J.  11;  Sclnvnrt/  r.  WeiuUll,  Walk.  Ch.  207. 

+  .Michotid  r.  (Jirod,  I  How.  GO:J;  Davof  r.  Fannin^',  2  Juiuis.  Ch.  252; 
BeUamy  r.  Ikllaiuy,  0  Fla.  •i2. 

\  Mirhoutl  r.  Girod.  4  How,  503;  Dnvoe  r.  Fanninj:.  2  Johns.  Ch.  252; 
Becwin  r.  Hccson,  9  Harr,  27'.t ;  Dorscy  r.  Dorsoy,  :t  IL  tV:  J.  410. 

§  Cumberland  Coal  Co.  c.  Shennan,  !!0  IJurb.  5iJ:J;  IJin;^';,'old  r.  Hin'.j- 
gold.  1  II.  &  J.  11. 

I  IlawU-y  r.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  717;  2sorlh  Ballo  Building  Association  r. 
Caldwdl,  2.';  Md.  4^0. 


FRAUD  ru::si;.M:;i). 


151) 


arrniiijcmcnt  willi  tlio  trustco,  liavo  l)ccu  tlic  purolia.scT  in 
trust  fur  the  separate  use  and  benefit  of  the  wife  of  tlie 
trustee* 

"^rhe  a]»i>li;';ili()ii  of  \]\v.  piiiicijilc  is,  liowcxci-,  liiiiitcd  to 
dealings  with  the  trust  estate.  In  all  matters  unconnected 
witli  the  siihjoct  of  tlie  trust,  the  pai'tics  are  fully  competent 
with  each  other  as  stran<^ei"s.' 

Nor  will  the  ])rinci})le  operate  alter  the  relatiun  of  trustee 
and  cestui  que  trust  is  clearly  dissolved,  hut  a  man  who  has 
been  a  trustee  cannot,  after  tlie  termination  of  the  relation,  be 
allowed  to  avail  himself  for  his  own  benefit,  and  to  the  preju- 
dice of  the  party  for  whom  he  has  been  trustee,  of  any  infor- 
mation which  he  may  have  ac(piire(l  durini^  the  existence  of 
the  relation.^  Subject  to  this  limitation,  a  man  who  lias  acted 
in  a  fiduciary  character  may,  on  divesting  or  discharging  him- 
self of  the  trust,  purchase  the  property  in  respect  of  which  he 
has  filled  a  fiduciary  position.**  If  a  man  cannot  by  an  act 
of  his  own  discharge  himself  of  the  trust  so  as  to  enable  him 
to  purchase,  the  court  will,  under  ])articular  circumstances, 
divest  him  of  the  character  and  enable  him  to  purchase'       If 


'  Dnvoe  v.  Fannin;^,  2  Johns.  Ch. 
(Anier.),  '2.") -J. 

"  Kniplit  r.  Marjoribanks,  2  Mac.  <fe 
G.  12,  2  11.  it  Tw.  308. 

'  Et-)»irte  Lacey,  6  Vos.  027 ;  Coles 
I'.  TrtCDtliick.  9  Ve?.  2U);  Kx-parle 
Iknnc'tt,  10  Yi-s.  301;  Morse  v.  Royal, 
12  Vcs.  373.  See  liarniiton  v.  Wri^clit, 
9  el.  <fe  Finn.  Ill ;  llolmaii  i'.  Loynes, 
4  D.  M.  it  G.  270. 

*  Eje-yarte  James,  8  Vcs.  337;  S.in- 
dcrs..ii  I'.  Walker,  13  Vi-s.  (Kil  ;  Downcs 
f.  Grazi'hrook,  3  Mer.  2(MI;  Kartlmlc- 
niew  V.  Leech,  7  Watts  (Amer.),  472. 
See  Stacey  ''.  EI|'h.  1  l\.  &  K.  l'.»5; 
Austin  I'.  Cliainliers,  6  (,'l.  «fc  Fin.  1. 
11)0  expres.sion  "  shaking  ofT"  the  char- 
acter of  trustee,  or  "  dissolvinij  the  re- 
lation" of  trustee,  used  in  some  of  the 
cases,  does  not  seem  to  amount  to  more 


than  that  the  transaction  takes  place 
witli  the  consent  of  tiie  parties  bene- 
ficially interested.  Kx-parte  James,  8 
Vcs.  352;  Coles  v.  Trecothick,  9  Ves. 
234,  240;  Morse  v.  Iloyal,  12  Vcs.  373  ; 
Downcs  V.  (irazehrook,  3  Mer.  208; 
Cii.dmer  v.  Bradley,  1  J.  .V  "W.  OS.  In 
Austin  V.  I'haiiibers,  0  C'l.  it  P'in.  1. 
where  it  was  said  that  a  man  mii^ht,on 
sh;ikin;5  off  the  character  of  a  trustee, 
jiurchasc  tlie  tru-;t  estate,  the  solicitor 
WMS  not  employed  in  the  sale  oy  his 
client,  and  was  himself  a  jtulurmcnt 
creditor.  A  trustee  cannot  he  allowed 
to  purchase  the  trust  estate  by  his  re- 
tirement from  the  trust  with  that  o!)- 
ject  in  view.  Sprinij  v.  IVide,  12  W. 
U.  510. 

'  Camiihell  >•.  Walker,  U  Ves.  OSl. 
Sec  Ki-pafie  James,  8  \'es.  348;  ban- 


*  Kearney  r.  Taylor,  15  How.  494;  Pries  r.  Evans,  26  Mo.  30. 


IGU  '  I'Ai  i»  1'k:..sim:  n. 

the  tnist  property  is  taken  entirely  out  ct'  ;i  mairs  liniuls,  and 
all  his  authority  over  it  ])ut  an  end  to  hy  the  int('rp(»sitiun  and 
act  ot*  law,  as  in  the  case  of  a  sah'  by  execution,  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  not  he  ahle  to  ]>nrcliase.  Tiu'  prin- 
cijdc  iijion  whiih  a  trustee  is  diharicil  iVnia  ]ninlia>iiii;  the 
trust  estate  <loes  not  a]>j)ly  to  such  a  case.*  The  a8sij;nec  ot* 
an  insolvent  debtor,  for  instance,  may  ])urchase  the  debtor's 
estate  when  sold  by  the  sherilK'  So  also  a  creditor  takini;  out 
execution  may  ]>urchasc  the  ]>ro]>erty  njton  a  sale  by  the 
sheriti?  IJut  a  man  standini;  in  a  tiduciary  character  with 
respect  to  projierty  cannot  be  allowed  to  i>urchase  the  prop- 
erty at  a  judicial  sale,  unless  the  entire  responsibility  of 
obtaininij  the  hii^hest  price  has  been  taken  out  of  his  hands.* 
If  be  continues  under  any  duty  in  respect  of  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  sale,  he  is  incapacitated  from  jjurehasin*^.'  j\or 
will  the  transaction  be  allowed  to  stand,  if  there  appears  to 
have  been  any  unfairness  in  his  conduct  with  regard  to  tho 
sale.' 

The  iiriiici})le  which  all'ects  dealings  between  trustee  and 
cestui  que  trtiM  is  not  conlined  to  trustees  properly  so  called, 
but  extends   to  other   }»ersons   inve>ted  with   a   like  lidiiciary 


(lorflon  r.  Walker.   13  Veo.  C02;  Mul-  Sec  llftwlcy  »••  Cramer,  l  Cow.  (Anicr.). 

vany  '••  I'iU"".  1    Ha.  «t   He.   -IIS;    Kx-  717.     ("oin|>.  Lord  ('niii-liwii   c.  Juliii- 

jKirle    JIarri>oi),     Uuek,     17;     Kx-p'irte  Btone,  ;{  Ves.  IHJ,  S  Ves.  'J77. 

Ilajje,  4  Madti.  •I'.tt;  Anon.  2  Rums.  350;  *  Van  Kpps  i-.  Van  Kpps.  ft  I'ai'o'a 

Exjxirtf  Morlaiul,  Muiit.  it  M.  7t'>.  Hi.   (Anier  ),  2:57;   Jcwclt  v.  Miller,  G 

'  Trevoht    V.    (Jrat/,    iVters"    ('.    C.  SeUi.  (Atner.),  4o2.     See  York  iJuiKl. 

(Ariier. ),  y7W;  P'isk  r.  Sarber,  6  Watts  ings  I'o.   v.   M'Kenr.ie.  ;i  I'at.  Sc.   Ap. 

ii    Ser;,'.    (Amor.),    18.       Seo    K/pirle  8118  ;  A'j--/)ar/f  .Morluiul,  Mont,  .t  .M.  70; 

Farley.  '.\  Dea,  and  I'll.  Hit;   Austin  v.  Ex-mrtr  Farley,  iiDea.  it  Cli.  110. 

<  lianil>er-«.   <i  ('Lit  I"in.   1;   IJeaden  v.  '  Fisk   v.  Sarljer,  ti  Wail.s  »t   .Sorjf. 

Kin;?,  y   Hn.    l'.*'.'.     Cornp.  York  Knild-  (Anier.).    18.     N-e    J-.'x/Hirlf    .Morland, 

intjH  Co.    V.  .M'Kenzie,  3  I'ul.  Sc.  App.  Mont.  »k  M.  7«;   Kx-f-irh-  Menn.tt.  10 

yya.  Yes.  U'.t.'l ;  J-Sx/nirle   Farley,  ;;  Hca.  d: 

»  FhU  r.   Sarhcr,  ft  WattH  .t    Serg.  Cli.  11">. 

(Amer.),    18.      Sec    KijiarU    Morland,  'Lord   Cranstown    v.   JolmKtonc,   S 

Mont.  «k  M.  70  Ve«.   182,  5  V<'«.  277;  I'crcns  r  John 

•  s>tralf«/rd    v.   Twynam.  Jar.    418;  ttun,  S  Siu.  ib  U.  41U. 
dianilMT'*  r.  WatcrH,  :i  Sim.  42;  S.  C. 
Wttttrn  V.  Groom,  11  Cl.  &.  Fiu.  084. 


FRAUD  PREKl'MKI). 


Kil 


cliaractcr  :  such  as  executors  and  adiiiiiiistraiors  ;' *  iissi^riu-cR 
of  a  l)aiiknij)t  ;^  roinmi.s^ioiicrs  of  l)ankruj)ts  ami  other  judicial 
oflicers;^  coiiiniittccs  of  hmatics;*  <;(i\eniors  of  :i  charity;' 
receivers;''  directors  of  a  i-aiiway  m-  ntlicr  coiii]ia!iy  ;' f  to  ar- 


'  lli'll  (..  ll„'l,-tt,  1  Cox,  i:;i;  Killick 
..  FK-xn.'y.  -t  liro.  0.  C.  Itil  ;  Wntsoii 
,;.  Toiiin-, V(  M;ulil.  IT):]  ;  iJiikiT  i'.  t'lirti.T, 
1  Y.  »k  C.  2.')0;  (Irovos  v.  I'crkins,  fl 
Shu.  57t) ;  Picki'riii^  r.  I'ickcrini;,  2 
Ik-av.  ;J1  ;  Wcilili'il)iirii  >•.  Wi'iliicrburn, 
4  M.  it  V.  11  ;  i;iirt()ii  r.  lIiH-;:ir.l, ;{  Dr. 
«t  War.  4(>I  ;  AUlri'V  ''.  -Mllioy.  1  Mac. 
A  G.  87  ;  Sinfilley  i'.  Vark-y,  \>:i  Beav. 
869 ;  I'riileau.x  v.  Loii.silalc,  1  D.  J.  <fe 
8.  433. 

•  Kxpartr  Reyiiolit-!,  5  Yes.  707  ;  ex- 
pnrle  lluylios,  tl  Yes.  017;  cx-parlc 
Lacej',  ill.  t')2.") ;  rx-ptrlc  James,  8  Yes. 
337  ;  ri-piirtf  UciiiiLat,  M  Yes.  381  ;  re 
Browne,  7  Ir.  Ch.  274;  I'ooley  c  Qiiil- 
ter,  2  1).  tfc  J.  327.  See  Adams  >'. 
Sworder,  2  1).  J.  tk  S.  44.  Leave  may 
be  fiiveii  by  tlic  court  to  tlu-  Jissii^nee  to 
l>ureliase  tlie  bankrupt's  estate.  Ez- 
jxnVf  Jiinu's,  S  Yes.  318;  rx-part'  Har- 
rison, Buck.  17;  cr-parte  Bu.;e,  4  Madd. 
40O;  Anon.,  2  Uu~..  350;  ex-purte 
Scrle,  1*(J1.  it  Ja.  is7;  ex-pirlc  Beau- 
raont,  1  Mont.  «k  A  3<i4.  In  one  case 
nn  nssiijnee  was  r^'inovcd  in  order  tliat 
he  miijht  bid  at  a  side  of  tlie  bankrupt's 
estate^  Et-purtr  I'eiks,  3  M.  1).  it  De;^. 
SS.").  Tlie  le.ive  must  ha  \t\X'\  iou^ly  ob- 
tained. Beforr  tiie  court  will  entertain 
any  such  application  on  the  part  of  the 
assignee,  he  must  tirst  obtain  tiie  con- 


Hent  (  f  the  creditors,  at  a  mcc-liii^j 
called  for  (lij  pn>':>o3o  of  eiiablini^  them 
to  assent  to  or  dif.-ent  f-.om  the  proposed 
purchase.  Kx-jxnte  Molinen.\,  4  D.  it 
('.  4()1  ;  AuoH.,  2  Ku's.  .'i.'/O;  and  even 
then  the  court  will  not  make;  the  order, 
except  under  very  sjiecial  circumstances. 
L'x-parte  IIod:^son,  1  <M.  it  J.  14;  cx- 
jtfirff  Towne,  4  I),  it  C.  .'"illi.  In  a  case 
where  the  court  refused  to  allow  an  as- 
8i;^nec  to  bid,  he  was  allowed  to  name 
the  price  he  would  irlve,  if  the  property 
was  not  sold  by  aucion,  ami  afterwards 
to  buy  at  that  price.  A'x-/iafte  Holy- 
man,  8  Jur.  1  i''>.  If  a  purciiase  by  an 
assi^^nee  be  fou  id  beneticial.  it  may  be 
C(jiitirme  1  by  the  court.  Ez-parie  Gore, 
6  Jur.  1  .18,  7  Jur.  136. 

'  J'.i  ,,arte  James,  8  Yes.  338;  rr- 
pa7-tc  liennett,  10  Yes.  381.  See  Camp- 
oell  I'.  I'cnnsvlvania  Life  Insurance  Co.. 
2  Whart.  (Amer.)  r>:i. 

*  Wriirht  V.  Proud,  13  Yes.  130. 

•  Att-Gen.  v.  Lord  Clarendon,  17 
Yes.  500. 

"  Alven  J'.  Bond,  1  Fl.  it  Kel.  190; 
Eyre  i:  McDonnell,  15  Ir.  Ch.  534  ;  Bod- 
diniftoii  r.  L:in:if()r<l,  ih.  558. 

'Benson  r.  lleathorn,  1  Y  it.  C.  C. 
C.  32»i;  York  and  >'oriii  .Midland  itail- 
way  Co.  I'.  Hudson,  10  Beav.  163  ;  Great 
Luxembourg  Kailway  Co.  v.  Magniiy, 


*  Diivoe  r.  Fanning,  2  Johns.  Ch.  252 ;  Mulford  v.  Minds,  3  Stock.  16 ; 
Mcanor  r.  Hamilton,  27  Penn.  Vol ;  Swayze  c.  Burk,  12  Pet.  11  ;  Cannon  r. 
Jenkins,  1  Dev.  Ch.  122. 

t  Hofl'man  Steam  Coul  Co.  v.  Ciimberiand  Coal  Jc  Iron  Co.,  IG  Md.  4.16; 
Cumberland  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  r.  Sherman,  oO  Barb.  o.j3 ;  Speuce  v.  Wbit- 
taker,  3  Port.  297. 

K prochciii  ami,  Collins  r.  Smith,  1  Head,  251. 

A  pledgee,  Md.  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Dalrymple,  25  Md.  242  ;  Baltimore  Mar. 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Dalrymple,  25  ild.  302. 

A  person  who  enters  under  a  contract  to  purchase,  Ilallet  r.  Collins,  10 
How.  174. 

But  not  to  a  sale  to  the  shcriiT,  Mark  r.  Lawrence,  5  H.  it  J.  Gl ;  Isaac 
c.  Clark,  2  Gill,  1. 


UV2 


i-UAi  1)  rui:su.Mi:i). 


l)itrat»M*s  ;'  t.>  a  tiuMiiUi'i'  dt"  Ji  c'urjH)nitu»ii  takini;  a  lease  of  tbo 
iMrporate  i>n»porty,'  and  many  other  eases.'  The  disability 
extends  in  jjjeneral  to  all  persuns  who  hein*;  employed  or  con- 
eerned  in  the  allairs  of  another  ac<inire  a  kin»\\  ledi^o  of  liis 
])rojHrtv.*  Partners  in  business  of  an  assignee  in  bankrupt ey 
arc  equally  disqualified  from  pureba>ing  as  the  assi-^nee  him- 
self.' 

The  prinfij)lo  does  not,  however,  apply  to  the  ease  of  a 
mort'^af^ee  dealing  with  the  mort::^a;^or,''  nor  to  tlio  c;iso  of  a 
puisne  morti^ai^eu  biiyini,'  the  mort_i:aLred  pr(»[)erty  from  a  i)rior 
mortgagee  under  the  exercise  of  his  power  of  sale;'  nor  to 
the  case  of  a  tenant  for  life  purchasing  from  trustees  for  ealo 
under  a  power  to  be  exercised  with  his  consent;^  nor  to  the 
ease  of  a  tenant  for  life  or  mr)rtgagor  with  power  to  sell  or  lease 
gelling  or  leasing  to  a  trustee  for  himself;^  nor  tl.os  the  prin- 
cijile  api»lv  to  the  case  of  merely  nominal  trustees,  such  as 
trustees  who  have  disclaimed,"  or  trustees  to  preserve  contingent 
remainders.*' 

If  the  tenant  of  charity  lands  happens  to  be  a  trustee,  that 
is  a  circumstance  to  excite  suspicion,  if  the  land  be  of  an  inad- 
equate value.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  case  of  a  charity  estate  is  one  in  which  of  all  others  the 
securitv  of  the  rent  is  the  lirst  object  to  be  regarded.     In  such 


'jn  llcav.  n87;  Onskpll  v.  Chnmhcro,  20 
r.<nv.  .'5(i(>;  AlH'nli'cn  Itaihvay  <'<>.  i'. 
l;lail;ii-.  1  .Mn<<i. -Jill;  M-/»<«r/<'lIill,  ;V2 
J,.  .1.  (li.  l.'»l ;  S|iackuiau'd  Cuao,  o4  L. 
.l.'cii.  :iJl. 

'  lUiiuierlin-Hflclt  »  Dny,  2  IJa.  cb  IJc, 

*  Atl.-flon.  V.  rorporotiun  of  Cashcl, 
3  I)r.  d:  Wur.  '.".tl. 

•  Soo  ex-imrtr  Morpon,  12  V<>h.  »> ; 
«; rover  r.  Hii;;"'!!.  :i  Kw-*.  ••'-"<;  <;r(<n. 
Inw  »'.  llii:;<-ll,  •"'  15<'av.  ■!'.»;  Hc.ulcii  «. 
Kiii'^',  0  IIii.  41*'';  I'iini'i  r.  l'ri»|iri"t<ir« 
nffirand  Juiiflion  Kuilwny  «'o..  :i  J  I.  \. 
"I'.i'i;  l)<-nl<iii  r.  Iionn'T,  211  Il«av.  2^5; 
rt  Uonsyoeit  KoUitu,  \'i  Ir.  Ch.  4U. 


•  Suj.  V.  ct  P.  6S7,  11th  c<l.  mprn.  p. 
151. 

•  Ki/Hutc  niirnrll.  7  .lur.  llrt. 

"  Kiii:;lit  V.  .Maijorihank-i.  2  Mac.  Jt  G. 
10.  2  11.  it  Tw.  :;>)!< ;  Dulisoii  I'.  Lnnil.  8 
I  la.  220;  but  comp.  Ilirk("<  •■.  Ciioko,  -1 
I>o\v.  It'i;  l)()\vncrt  (•.  (irazi'hrook,  !) 
Mer.  200;  iv  Dloye'a  Trii-t,  1  Mac.  A 
<J.  UM';  Kohort-tDii  f.  Norris,  1  (Jiff. 
421  ;   Ford  i-.  Old.-n,  L   U.  'A  Kij.  101. 

'  Sliaw  I',  nuiiiiy.  2  1)  .1.  A  S.  468  ; 
Kirkwooil  ('.  'rii<imp''i>ti,  ih,  t\];i. 

•  ll.iwi.nl  r.  Diicati.'.  T.  .t  K.  81. 

•  H.vaii  r.  Hal.u'.,()J,  1  .1.  &  H.  222. 
••.suicey  V.  KIpii.    1    M.   A    K.   195; 

ClimiiliiT^  V.  Wators,  ',1  Sim.  42. 

••  J'arki-8  I'.  Wliit*;,  11  Vc8.  209,  22ft. 


1'1:AII)    I'KKSUMED.  Ki.'J 

cases,  therefore,  tlic  iiiii(le(|ii:icy  of  the  rent  reserved  is  less  a 
bailee  of  fniud  tluiii  it  would  he  in  almost  any  other  case.* 

Considerations  of  a  biniilar  character  aj)j)ly  to  tlie  ease  of 
transactions  ])ct\veen  ])ersons  standing  to  eacli  other  in  tin;  ivhi- 
tioii  of  solicitor  and  client.'*  It  is  the  duty  of  a  solicitor  to 
protect  the  interests  of  his  client.  The  client  is  entitled  to  tho 
full  benelit  of  the  best  exertions  of  the  solicitor.  A  solicitor 
may  not  brini,^  his  own  personal  iiitere-t  in  any  way  into  con- 
flict with  that  which  his  duty  ivijuin-s  him  to  do,^f  or  make  a 
gain  for  himself  in  any  manner  whatever  at  the  expense  of  his 
client  in  respect  of  the  subject  of  any  transactions,  connected 
with  or  arising  out  of  the  relation  of  solicitor  and  client,  beyond 
the  amount  of  just  and  f\iir  professional  remuneration  to  -which 
he  is  entitled.-*:}:     A  solicitor  may  not  even  enter  into  an  agree- 

•  J?!;-/)^/-/^  Skinner,  2  Mor.  457.  *   Wood    v.    Downo.s.   18  Ve><.   12<>; 

'See  Walmsluy  1-.  Bootli.  2  Atk.  29;  Rliodus    v.    Ik-auvuir,    G    TA'v^h,     I'j:,; 

Newman   v.   I'nvup.    2    Vea.   Jr.   201;  Ciiixinjiion  v.    Rii^hy.  Taml.  421,  9  L.J. 

Rhodes  V.  Beauvoir.  0  Rligli,  195;  Cas-  Ch.  X.  8.  211  ;  Lvddon  i-.  JIoss,  4  D.  <fe 

borne  r.  Barsham,  2  Bi-av."7t) ;  Iloluian  J.  lot;  Proctor  v.  llobinson,  35   Beav. 

V.  Loynos,  4  1).  M.  &  (J.  270.  3:i5  ;  Tvrrell  v.  Bank  of  London,  10  II. 

'  '  Lawless  v.  ilaiisfiuld.  1  Dr.  <k  War.  k  20,  44. 
557,  (>:h. 


*  Dc  Kor^e  V.  Fay,  3  Edw.  Ch.  3G9  ;  s.  c.  4  Edw.  Ch.  40  ;  Gray  r.  Em- 
mons, 7  Mich.  533. 

t  VaU-ntine  r.  Stuart,  15  Cal.  387;  Cox  v.  Sullivan,  7  Geo.  144  ;  IIooi)C3 
V.  Burnc-tt,  2G  Mi^s.  428. 

X  Clcavingcr  r.  Keimar,  4  W.  &  S.  48G  ;  Brock  v.  Barnos  40  Bar]).  521 ; 
Giddings  v.  Eastman,  5  Paige,  Stil ;  Barry  v.  Whitney,  3  Sandf.  GOG. 

An  attorney  is  bound  to  disclose  to  his  client  every  adverse  retainer, 
and  even  every  prior  retainer,  which  may  aflfcct  the  discretion  of  the  latter. 
Williams  v.  Reed,  3  ^Mason,  455. 

An  attorney  can  not  abandon  his  cliont.  and  go  over  to  the  adverse 
party.  Valentine  v.  Steward,  15  Cal.  387;  "Wilson  v.  State,  IG  Ind.  302; 
Price  V.  Grand  Rapids  &  Ind.  R.  R.  Co.  18  Ind.  137. 

The  mere  fact  that  he  has  o!jtaini'd  knowledge  of  the  matters  con- 
nected with  the  suit  in  the  course  of  other  business  does  not  prevent  him 
from  acting  adversely  to  his  former  client.  Price  r.  Grand  Rai)i.ls  &  Ind. 
R.  R.  Co.  18  Ind.  137. 

An  attorney  may  make  the  measure  of  his  compensation  a  part  of  the 
contract  by  which  he  agrees  to  pe-form  tlic  serviCLS  needed,  and  such  a 


nil  11:AI  l>    I'Ul.SlMl.l). 

mcnt  with  a  man  to  be  \\h  polioiti.r  in  a  particular  transaction 
upon  tlio  tonus  (.f  «rottin«,'  a  <;reati'r  licnrtit  than  he  \v(.uKl  ob- 
tain by  tlie  ('<ists  whii'li  lie  is  cntitk-il  to  char^^o  ai-ccrdini;  to 
the  rules  of  law.'  If.  in<lee«l,  a  solicitor  be  a  trustee,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  chari^'e  for  professional  services  in  respect  of  the 
trust  estate.* 

A  solicitor  is  not  under  any  incapacity  to  ])urchase  from  or 
sell  to  a  client.  A  solicitor  may  deal  with  a  client  or  purchase 
a  client's  proi>erty  even  duriiii;  the  continuance  of  the  relation, 
but  the  biirtluMi  of  pnx.f  lies  on  him  to  show  that  the  transac- 
tion has  been  perfectly  fair.^'-^  A  j.rudent  man  woidd  not  deal 
with  his  client  without  the  intervention  of  another  solicitor, 
but  there  is  no  rule  that  a  solicitor  may  not  take  such  a 
course.*  He  must,  however,  bo  prepared  to  show  that  he  gave 
his  client  the  same  protection  as  he  would  have  given  him,  if 

•Strnn-e   r.    -Rronnnn.   15  L.  J.  Ch.  '  Stancs  v.    rnrker.   9    Bcav.    385; 

88fl  •  IMnc^-  I'.  I5.'iittie,  32  L.J.  Cli.  7=54  ;  To.1.1  v.  Wilson,  ib.  4S(5. 
Bce  ilc  Whitconibe.  8  Hcnv.  140  ;  comp.  '  Sxpn,,  p.  IM.  .  ,     ^    ^,    ^    , 

Lvildori  r   Moss,  t   1>.  A  J.  Ml;  G.illo-  *  (-'utts  -•.  Sulinon.  '21  L.  J.  Ch.  7.)0, 

n-av  '•  C'orponition  of  Loiulon.  L.  11.  4  per  Lord  St.  Loonnrds ;  Jones  i-.  Price. 

Eq!  it'i;   8<e  liirtlur  a?  to  account--*  be-  '20  L.  T.  40  ;  see  W  alt  v.  Grove,  2  Sch. 

twi-en    Koli<itor    ami   clicut,  A'ukcd  v.  «t  Lcf.  M'6. 
Warlon,  5  lieav.  448. 


contract  will  bo  as  bindinir  upon  tl»c  client  as  any  one  into  wliinh  he  can 
enter.  Lejratt  v.  SuUee,  3  Port.  11");  Wallis  r.  Loubat,  10  Pai^'c,  352 ; 
Balsdbaujli  v.  Fraser,  19  Penn.  95;  Mills  v.  Mills,  20  Ct.  213.  Contra,  «r- 
j^trU  Plitt,  2  Wallace,  Jr.  453. 

A  juil^'inint  by  confession  to  an  iittorncy  will  only  stand  as  security  for 
what  is  actually  due.     Starr  t.  Vandcr>lieyden,  9  Johns.  253. 

A  security  taken  durinj;  the  iMiulcncy  of  a  suit  can  not  be  enforced  for 
«inythin<s'  beyond  the  sum  actually  due.     Mott  r.  lIarrin«:ton,  12  Vt.  199. 

An  attorney  who  holds  a  judgment  for  himself  and  a  jud;,'ment  for  his 
client  against  a  common  del>tor,  and  collects  his  own  by  the  use  of  dili- 
gence, beyond  tlu-  obli^'ations  of  his  trust  can  not  be  compelled  to  pay  the 
money  to  his  client.     C'o.x  r.  Sullivan,  7  (ieo.  14  I. 

The  doctrine  applies  to  suits  before  magi-strates  as  well  as  in  court. 
IlulTalow  r.  IJulTalow.  2  Dev.  i\:  Hat.  K<i.  241. 

»  Evans  r.  KUis,  5  Dcnio,  C40;  .Mills  r.  Ervin,  1  McCord's  Ch.  521  ;  Mat- 
ter of  Po.st,  3Etlw.  Ch.  309. 


FKAl  I)    I'KI'Sl  .Mi;i). 


105 


dealing  with  a  Htraiii^or,  and  must  satisfy  tlio  court  that  lu;  has 
taken  no  advanta^^u  ol"  liis  ])rot'cssional  ])obition,  hut  lia.s  duly 
and  li<-»ni'stly  advistMl  his  clii-nt  as  an  in<h']i(  inh-nt  ami  di,>intc'r- 
ested  advistT  woiilil  have  done,  and  has  lii-ou;4'ht  to  his  knowl- 
edge evcrythini^  which  lie  himself  knew  neeessaiy  to  enahlo 
liim  to  form  a  judi^mont  in  the  matter,  and  he  must  in  ])articu- 
lar  he  able  to  show  that  a  just  and  fair  price  lias  been  ^iven.^* 
lie  Bhould,  indeed,  he  pi'epared  to  show  Ikjw  the  contract  was 
entered  into,  wlio  made  tlic  first  offer,  and  what  were  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  the  transaction.'^  The  possibility  of  a 
specuhitive  or  contingent  advantage  does  not  fall  within  those 
communications  which  a  solicitor  is  bound  to  disclose  to  his 
client,  if  the  transaction  has  been  in  other  respects  fair,  and 
the  point  ^vas  as  much  open  to  the  observation  of  the  one 
party  as  the  other.*  If  a  solicitor  be  employed  as  an  agent  for 
sale  or  purchase,  he  may  not  purchase  from  or  sell  to  himself 
surreptitiously  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  his  client.* 


'  Gibson  v.  Jcycs.  0  Ves.  277  ;  Monf> 
esquicu  v.  Sandys,  18  Ves.  liO'i;  Cane 
V.  Lord  Allen,  2  Dow.  2'.)1 ;  Morgan  r. 
Lewos,  4  Dow.  2".t,  47 ;  Molony  v. 
L'Estianno.  Beat.  4(JG ;  Cliaminon  v. 
Hi^by.Tainl.  421.  9  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S  211 ; 
UppiiiRton  I'.  Bullen,  2  Dr.  <fe  War. 
IMS;  Edwards  v.  Meyrick,  2  Ha.  CO; 
lliu;gi»s  i:  Joyce,  2  J.  it.  L.  282 ;  Spin- 
cer  V.  Tophnni,  22  Beav.  573  ;  lloliiiaii 
V.  Loyiics.  4  D.  M.  <t  G.  270;  Hesse  i'. 
Briaiit,  6  D.  -M.  it  G.  623;  Savery  v. 
King,  5  H.  L.  027 ;  Torason  v.  Judije,  3 
Drew.  3(Ki ;  Barnard  v.  Hunter,  2  Jur. 
N.  S.  1213;  Kni-^lit  c.  Bowver.  2  D.  it 
J.  421,  44.-);  Cre-sley  v.  Mouslev.  4  D. 
<t  J.  78,  3  D.  F.  <fe  J.  433 ;  Lyddon  v. 
Moss,  4  D.  «fe  J.   104;  Morgan  ti.  llig 


gins,  1  Giflf.  270;  Crowdy  v.  Day,  if> 
31t5;  IV-ar-on  v.  Benson,  28  Beav.  5it'.i ; 
Marquis  of  Clanricarde  v.  Heiining,  3it 
Beav.  17.-);  Beale  v.  Billing,  13  Ir.  Cli. 
2.')!);  Gibljs  )'.  Daniel,  4  GitF.  1  ;  Adams 
V.  Sworder,  2  D.  J.  it  S.  44  ;  Rhodes  v. 
Bate,  L.  K.  1  Ch.  Ap.  252. 

"Jones  V.  Price,  20  L.  T.  49;  seo 
Rhodes  v.  Bate,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  Ap.  252; 
see  also  Moore  v,  Prance,  9  Ha.  2'.ty, 
where  a  deotl  was  set  aside  though  the 
solicitor  derived  no  benefit  from  it. 

*  Edwards  v.  Meyrick,  2  II.  GO ;  see 
Montesquieu  v.  Sandys,  18  Ves.  302; 
RamsboUom  v.  Parker,  6  Madd.  6 ; 
Holnian  v.  Loynes,  4  D.  M.  <fe  G.  270; 
Wentwortii  v.  Lloyd,  32  lieav.  4o7. 

*  £x-paite  James,   8  Ves.    352 ;   Ez- 


♦Mills  T.  Ervin,  1  McCorcl's  Ch.  524;  Bibb  r.  Smith,  1  Dana,  582; 
Downing  r.  :Major,  2  Dana,  228 ;  Rose  r.  :Mynatt,  7  Yerg.  30 ;  Phelps  r. 
Overton,  4  Ilayw.  292;  Lecutt  r.  S:ilkc  3  Port.  115;  Marshall  r.  Joy,  17 
Vt.  54G ;  Unwell  v.  Kansom,  11  Paige,  538 ;  Smith  r.  Thompson,  7  B.  Mou. 
105  :  Lewis  c.  A.  J .  4  Edw.  Ch.  599. 


KAj 


FKAi'i)  i*ui:srMi:D. 


If  the  pale  l»e  under  a  ilocreo  of  the  court,  a  solicitor  employed  in 
the  cause,  who  wishes  to  ])urchase,  nhould  first  obtain  leave  of 
the  court.'  A  solicitor  employed  in  the  sale  of  an  estate 
should  not  bid  for  the  estate  th<»ui:h  it  may  be  merely  for  the 
pm-pose  of  prevcntiui^  it  ^oini^  at  an  uii<K'rv;ilii(>,  unless  he  first 
obtain  the  leave  of  the  court  to  do  so.  If  he  do  so  without  the 
leave  of  the  court  and  there  is  no  hi;rher  bidder,  he  may,  if  the 
court  thinks  proper,  be  held  to  the  purchase.' 

The  rule  that  a  solicitor  who  deals  with  a  client  is  l)Ound 
to  prove  the  fairness  of  the  transaction  apjdies  with  ]>eculiar 
force  where  the  client  is  j)laced  at  a  disadvantage  from  his 
being  indebted  to  the  solicitor,  and  gives  him  a  security  for 
the  debt.^  If,  however,  the  court  is  satisfied  that  the  transac- 
tion has  been  on  the  whole  fair  and  reasonable,  and  that  no  un- 
due advantage  has  been  taken,  it  will  be  8U]>porte(l,  although 
there  may  have  been  some  irregularities  attending  it.*  A 
solicitor  who  advances  money  to  or  has  dealings  with  a  client 
must  be  able  to  prove  the  advance  of  the  money  by*  some 
other  evidence  than  the  instrument  creating  the  security.'    A 


parte  Bennett.  10  Ves.  381 ;  Cnne  v. 
Lord  Allen.  2  TJow.  294;  Uh.nk.s  t>. 
Bcauvoir,  6  Bli;;Ii,  !'.».'•;  Sidnev  v. 
Unn^fCT,  12  Sim.  IIH;  Blovt's  Trust.  1 
Moc.A  G.  4S«;  Lewis  i:  Hillinnn,  :i  11. 
ii  L.  t'.o7;  Tyrrell  r.  liunk  of  London, 
10  H.  L.  20,*4l;  Aduius  v.  Sworder,  2 
D.  J.  tt  S.  44. 

•  .Sidney  v.  llanpcr,  12  Sim.  118. 

•  Neltliorpc  v.  runny riiiin,  14  Ves. 
617. 

'  Troof  p.  Hinoi.,  ca.  t.  Tidb.  ll.'i; 
WahnHJey  ".  Iloolii,  2  Atk.  29;  Drnper'H 
Co.  r.  I»nvi«,  ib.  29.'>;  Ward  i'.  Ilartpole, 
cit.  8  BU"1>,  470;  Newman  v.  I'nyne.  2 
Vc9.  Jr.  200;  C<.ok<>  v.  Selree.  l"V.  <k 
B.  120;  l>aly  v.  Kelly.  4  Dow.  417. 
4:10;  CaHborni;  v.  Bariliaiii,  2  Hear.  7i>; 
('hnmpion  v.  Ui;;l»v,  Tand.  421.  9  I,.  .1. 
Ch.  N.  S.  211;  Bellamy  v.  Sabine.  2  I'll. 
42.'»;  Lawle«H  I'.  MniiHlicId,  1  Dr.  tV  War. 
6.17  ;  Ui>[)iiiUlon  v.  Bidl.n.  2  Dr.  «t  War. 
180;   Ldwarda  v.  Meyrick,  2  Ho.  CU ; 


Slmw  V.  Xcnle.  20  Beav.  157;  Coleman 
I'.  Mellersli.  2  Mac.  it  (J.  ;{09 ;  llolman 
t'.  Loynes,  4  I).  JI.  d-  (}.  27i>;  Lyddon 
V.  Moss,  28  Beav.  598 ;  see  .Jones  v. 
Thomas.  2  Y.  »t  C.  498;  Morjjan  v. 
IIitr'.;ins.  1  GitF.  270;  Re  Foster,  2  1>.  F. 
it  J.  110;  He  I'uirli.  1  D.  J.  tt  S.  «7S. 

*.Iones  v.  Koberts.  <i  Beav.  419;  Bln- 
prave  i:  Unitli,  8  D.  M.  it  (i.  CrJl  ;  seo 
("ooko  V.  Sitree.  1  V.  it  B.  12(1;  I'len- 
derleatli  I-.  Frnzer,  .*}  V.  it  B.  174  ;  Law- 
less V.  Man,sfiild,  1  Dr.  it  War.  557 ; 
Slodmnn  r.  Collett.  17  Heav.  C.iKS;  Mo-fis 
I'.  Bainbriir'.r<'.  •>  D.  M.  «t  G.  292;  see 
Clie.-lvn  I'.  Dalby,  2  Y.  it  C.  17">;  comp. 
Lyddon  >:  .Mo.-<s.  4  D.  it.  .1.  KM. 

*  -Morijan  r.  Iawcs.  4  Dow.  4<i;  Mor- 
(jan  v.  KvauM.  H  (1.  it  Fin.  19.'. ;  Lawless 
V.  .MannlieM.  1  Dr.  «t  War.  557;  Grcs- 
ley  e.  Monsley.  ;j  D.  F.  it  J.  4.'{3;  see 
Junes  I'.  Tliotiia'".  2  Y.  it  C  498;  ijlaio- 
ton  V.  Cttrrou  Co.  2 1  Beav.  aoi 


FKAT'D  PRr.si::siED.  107 

BoUc'itor  cannot,  under  cany  circuniPtnnccs,  take  Rccurity  from 
his  client  for  future  costs,*  or  f^r  moneys  to  be  advanced 
for  the  purposes  of  a  cause  ;"  l)ut  llie  security  pven  ]>y  a  client 
to  his  solicitor  for  past  costs  or  I'ur  moneys  actually  due  will  he 
supported  if  hond^p'dc} 

The  statement  of  an  untrue  consideration  in  a  deed  (;f  jjur- 
chaso  or  sale  between  attorney  and  client  is  fatal  to  the  deed. 
The  court  will  never  support  a  deed  where  an  attorney  is  pur- 
chaser and  the  consideration  is  untruly  stated.* 

The  rule  which  throws  upon  a  solicitor  dealing:  with  his 
client  the  burthen  of  proving  the  fairness  of  the  transaction  is 
not  confined  to  cases  where  the  solicitor  is  actually  employed 
at  the  time,  but  may  extend  to  cases  where  a  solicitor  lias  in 
the  course  of  his  employment  on  a  previous  occasion  acquired 
or  had  the  means  of  acquiring  any  peculiar  knowledge  as  to 
the  property.''  -     As  a  general  rule,  however,  it  no  longer  ap- 


'  Jones  I'.  Tripp,  Jac.  322  ;  WiUiama  *  Uppin^ton  v.  Bullen,  2  Dr.  <fe  War. 

t>.  rin:;?ott,  ib.  5'.»8  ;  Bootli  v.  Creswicke,  181 ;  see  liolman  v.  Loynes,  4  L).  M.  «t 

13  L.J.  CI).  217;  Cok-man  r.  Mellersh,  G.  27o. 

2  .Mac.  <fc  G.  301) ;  see  I'itclier  v.  Kigby,  '  liolman  v.  Lovncs,  4  D.   M.  <fe  G. 

9  I'ri.  79.                                                 ■  270;   Gibbs    v.    Daniel,  4  Giflt.  1 ;  see 

'  Uppington  i'.  Bullen,  2  Dr.  tfe  War.  Carter  v.  rulmer,  8  CL  Jb   Pin.   667 

184.  707. 

'Cheslyn  v.  Dalb}^  2  Y.  &  C.  170; 
Edwards "r.  Meyrick,  2  Ua.  GO. 


*  Galbraith  v.  Elder,  8  Watts,  81;  Rcid  v.  Stanley,  G  W.  &  S.  326; 
nockenburg  r.  Carlisle,  5  W.  &  S.  348. 

As  the  necessities  of  litigation  compel  confidence  on  one  side,  the 
policy  of  the  law  requires  fidelity  on  the  other.  The  policy  which  enjoins 
good  faith  requires  that  it  should  never  be  violated.  The  reas^ons  for  re- 
quiring it,  all  demand  that  it  should  be  pcq)etual.  Occasions  may  arise 
•when  an  upright  counsellor  may  feci  himself  bound  to  withdraw  from  his 
client's  cause,  but  no  circumstances  whatever  can  justify  him  in  betraying 
the  trust  reposed  under  the  highest  obligation  of  professional  Louor. 
Where  fidelity  is  required,  the  law  prohibits  everything  which  presents  a 
temptation  to  betray  the  trust.  The  orison  which  deprecates  temptation 
is  the  oflspring  of  infinite  wisdom,  and  the  rule  of  law  in  accordance  with 
it,  rests  upon  the  most  substantial  foundations.     The  purchase  by  an  at- 


KiS  ruAi  I)  i'Ui;srMi:D. 

plies  after  there  Ims  been  an  entire  eess^tion  of  the  relation  ;* 
nor  will  it  ai>i»ly  in  cases  wlirre  the  transaction  is  entirely  un- 
connected with  the  duty  of  the  attorney.'*  Nor  will  it  ajiply 
with  the  panic  force  wljere  the  relation  liiuiiuh  not  terminated 
has  heen  looseiu  d  and  the  intlnenco  consequent  on  the  relation 
which  i\»nnerly  existed  between  the  parties  is  not  8ubsistin«;  in 
its  full  and  jK-rfect  force.'  The  solicitor  of  a.  plaintilf  out  of 
M-hose  haiuls  the  property  is  entirely  taken  by  act  of  law,  as 
upon  a  ^^ale  by  execution,  is  not  debarred  iVoni  i)ureliasing  the 
property  in  I'xeeution.  Neither  the  defendant  in  the  execu- 
tion nor  a  third  ])crson  can  object  to  the  validity  of  the  trans- 
action.'*t     r.ut  as  between  him  and  his  client,  the  transaction 

'  Gibson  v.  Jevca.  C  Vcs.  277  ;  Wood  *  Sco  Jones  v.  Thomas.  2  Y.   A.  C. 

r.  Downcs.  IS  Vus.  120;   MuntfsqHicu  510. 

.■.  Sjiiulys.  if>.  :U3;  Cane  r.  Lord  Allen,  '  Moss  v.  Bainbrigse,  (>  D.  51.  «k  G. 

2  I)ow."2s9 :    M<>.«!'  f.  Bainbriii^e.  i\  D.  292. 

M  A  G.  292  ;  see  Dent  t-.  Bennett,  1  M.  *  Howell    v.    Baker.    4    John.s.     Ch. 

AC  2f,9,  277;  Carter  v.  Palmer.  8  (1.  (Amer.).    121;   Hawley    »'.    Cramer.  4 

A  Fin.  (j.^7  ;  Blagruve  v.  Kuuth,  8  I>.  M.  Cow.  ( Anier.).  717 :  see  Austin  v.  Cliam- 

tt  G.  020.  tiers,  0  CI.  &  Fin.  1,  giijjiu,  p.  159. 


tomey  of  an  interest  in  the  thinj^  in  controvcry  in  opposition  to  the  title 
of  his  client,  is  forbidden  because  it  places  him  under  temptation  to  be 
unfaithful  to  his  trust.  Such  a  i)urcliase.  tlierefore,  enures  to  the  benefit 
of  liis  client.  Where  the  confidence  has  relation  to  the  title  to  land,  the 
lidelity  of  the  coun.sel  must  necessarily  follow  the  title  of  his  client  wher- 
ever it  noes.  Any  other  rule  wouUi  defeat  the  object  of  the  trust  by  de- 
strovinj;  the  market  value  of  the  title.  If  the  client's  vendee,  and  even  his 
orphan  children  may  be  ruiiie<l  by  means  of  violating  the  trust  repo^^ed  by 
their  vendor  or  ancestor,  and  such  breaclies  of  trust  are  sanctioned  by  the 
courts,  all  land  titles  would  b;;  in  jeopardy,  the  bar  would  cease  to  en- 
joy the  confidence  of  the  people  and  the  courts  of  justice,  in.stead  of  being 
the  bulwarks  of  public  and  private  security,  would  become  the  most  in- 
tolerable engines  of  disturbance  and  oppression.     Henry  r.  Raiman,  21 

I'enn.  J154. 

An  attorney  may  buy  other  jmiperty  in  good  faith,  even  though  it  ad- 
join.s  the   projierty  ownetl   by  his  client.     Smith   r.  Hrolherline,  02  Pcim. 

401. 

•  Wendell  r.  Van  Henssler,  1  Johns.  Ch.  iitl. 

t  I>each  r.  Fowler,  22  Ark.  11:1. 

In  order  to  relieve  an  attoriuy  from  the   oiiligalion  to  which  the  pre- 


FRAi  1)  i'Ki:sr.Mi:i).  109 

is  not  valid,  if  tho  sum  given  hj  liiiii  is  inBufliciciit  to  Fntisfy 
the  debt,  unless  the  client  assents  to  the  j)urclias(;.  If,  how- 
ever, the  ]»iircliase-nione_y  is  suflicient  to  pay  tin;  (lel)t  of  the 
client,  the  latter  cannot  ol)ject  to  the  transaction.'- 

The  rule  which  throws  upon  a  solicitcjr  dealini^  with  his 
client  the  burthen  of  proving  the  fairness  of  the  transaction, 
applies  to  the  case  of  voluntary  agreements,  and  not  to  a  case 
where  the  solicitor  is  in  the  liostile  attitude  of  an  urgent  and 
pressing  creditor.'^  Xor  does  the  rule  apply,  where  the  trans- 
action is  totally  disconnected  Avith  the  relation  and  ccjucerns, 
objects,  and  things  not  embraced  in,  or  affected  by,  or  dependent 


'  Hawlcy  v.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  (Amer.),       13  ;  Pcnrson  v.  Benson,  28  Beav.  599; 
717,  see  Mo93  V.  Bainbrigge,  G  D.  M.  <k  G. 

*  Johnson  v.  Fesenmeyer,  3  D.  <t  J.       292. 


sumption  of  law  pivcs  rise,  it  must  appear  afHrmalivcly  that,  before  the 
transaction  or  dealing  took  place,  the  relation  was  completely  at  an  end 
so  that  no  influence  could  rationally  be  supposed  any  longer  to  exist. 
Lewis  V.  A.  J.  4  Edw.  Ch.  599. 

*  Case  r.  Carroll,  So  N  Y.  385 ;  Moore  v.  Bracken,  27  111.  23 ;  Howell  r. 
Baker,  4  Johns.  Ch.  118  ;  Lcisinring  v.  Black,  5  Watts,  ;i03;  Wade  v.  Pette- 
bonc,  11  Ohio,  ooT ;  Smith  v.  Thompson,  7  B.  Mon.  305  ;  Stockton  c.  Ford, 
11  How.  232. 

If  there  are  two  plaintiffs  in  an  executron,  an  attorney  can  not  purchass 
the  property  levied  upon  for  the  benefit  of  one  without  the  consent  of  tlie 
other  for  less  than  the  whole  sum  due  on  the  judgments.  Leisinring  r. 
Black,  5  Watts,  303;  Ilawiey  v.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  717;  Webb  v.  White,  18 
Tex.  572. 

A  purchase  alone  does  not  make  an  attorney  a  trustee.  lie  is  a  trustee 
only  at  the  instance  of  his  principal.  Downey  v.  Garrard,  12  Ilarris,  52  ; 
6.  c.  3  Grant,  G4. 

An  attoniey  is  bound  to  perfect  fairness,  and  can  not  take  advantage 
of  untoward  circumstances  to  force  a  sale  to  the  ruin  of  a  del)tor,  and  to 
his  own  profit.     Byera  v.  Surget,  19  IIow.  303  ;  8.  c.  1  Hemp.  715. 

The  rule  docs  not  apply  between  the  attorney  and  grantees  of  tenants 
in  common  with  his  client.     Cowan  v.  Barrett.  18  ilo.  257. 

An  attorney  for  the  defendant  may  purchase  property  sold  under  an 
execution.  Devinney  v.  Norris,  8  Watts,  314;  Cleavinger  o.  Rcimar,  3  W. 
&  S.  483. 

12 


170  FHAfD  iMM:srMi:n. 

«l>oii  t]i:it  n-l.ition.'  'I'lio  fact  that  tlu'  i)nr('liaf"i>r  nifiv  bo  a 
eolieitor,  and  that  tho  vendor  had  no  lo^al  adviser,  tlieru  havini; 
been  no  ]»revions  rehition  of  solieitor  and  client  hetween  them, 
does  nitt  hrinij^  the  eajjo  within  the  ordinary  rule  vt'  tlie  eourt 
in  such  cases.' 

The  iMile  with  roirard  to  ^'itts  by  a  cliiiif  to  liis  solicitor  is 
mneh  stricter  than  the  rule  with  regard  to  other  dealinirs 
between  them.  (Jilts  from  a  client  to  a  solicitor  durin<^  the 
existence  of  the  rehition  a]ipcar,  upon  the  balance  of  author- 
ities, to  be  altsolutely  invalid  uj)on  irrounds  of  ])ublie  policy  ; 
nor  can  a  i^ift  by  a  client  to  a  solicitor,  after  the  cessation  of 
tlie  relation,  be  supjiorted,  unless  the  intiu(!nce  arising  from 
the  relation  may  be  rationally  supposed  to  iiave  ceased  also.^  * 
There  is  no  difference  in  principle  between  a  i,'ift  to  a  man's 
wife  and  a  irit't  ininuMliately  to  himself,  if  the  ^ift  to  the  wife 
be  affecte<l  by  undue  means  on  the  ])art  of  the  husband.*  The 
rule  in  resj)ect  to  benefits  conferred  by  Mill  is  dilferent.  A 
solicitor  may  take  a  benefit  under  the  will  of  a  client,  although 
he  may  himself  have  prepared  it,  if  no  undue  intluence  was 

•  Montesquieu  »'.  Snn.lys.  18  Vi'.«.  .313;  470;  Walsli  v.  StuiKlcrt,  2  Con.  tt  L. 
Jones  V.  Thomns,  2  Y.  \t  V.  -IttS;  Ed-  423;  Tonison  »•.  .lu(l;:c.  3  Drew.  3i'ti ; 
wards  v.  Meyrick,  2  Ilii.  dO,  (iS.  lloltniui  v.  Loyiies,  4  1).  M.  it  (J.  270, 

'Edwards    v.    Willmms,    11    W.    R.  2^3;  J:,    Holmes's  Estite,  3  GilF.  337 ; 

661.  (;ibb.s  f.   Daniel.  4  (JilF.  1;  O'Hrion  v. 

•  Welles  »'.  Middleton,  1  Cox,  112,  4  Ix-wis,  4  fJiff.  221  ;  but  f^ee  Oldhiini  v. 
Bro.  1'.  C.  24.'i :  NewniiiH  v.  ravTie.  2  llimd,  2  N'es.  261*;  Harris  v.  Trenien- 
Vea.  .Ir.  20<i;  Wriijlit  v.  Troiid  13  Vea.  lieere,  l.'>  Yes,  34  ;  Ifiuiter  r.  Atkins,  2 
I37,;»«"r  l.ord  Eldnii ;  Wood  r.  D.iwnes,  M.  d  K.  113;  Walker  v.  Smith,  2« 
18  Yes.  120;  Uod.lard  r.  ('Ilrli^le,  ".•  I'ri.  lioav.  3'.'4. 

1C9;   Ward  v.  llurtpole,   cit,  3  Bligii,  *  (Joddurd  f.  Curli.'sle, '.»  IVL  169. 


•  The  presumption  is  against  the  propriety  of  gifts,  but  it  is  not  in- 
vincible. Ncsliit  r.  Lockman,  VA  N.  Y.  lOT;  Hrock  r.  Harncs,  40  Barb. 
521. 

The  moment  that  it  is  a-seertained  tliat  the  rehition  is  finally  clo.sed, 
gratitude  may  be  munilicint,  or  even  prodigal.  But  it  must  1k'  clearly 
Keen  that  the  bounty  uprings  from  unfeltered  gratitude,  not  from  pre- 
vious entan;,'hnunlH ;  that  it  i.s  a  free-will  olTering  for  dillirultiea  over- 
come, not  the  fulfillment  f)f  a  vnw  rxtorted  in  peril.  Uerrieu  r.  McLane,  1 
Ilofl'.  Ol.  12;   Leg.ilt  r.  Salle,  :!  Tori.  llo. 


FRAi  I)  ri;i:sr.Mi:i).  171 

exerted  l»y  liiin  over  the  tentatdr,'  iiiid  llic  will  was  ni»t  ex  "- 
cuted  under  any  mistake  or  iiiisa)>|>reliension  cauHed  by  Ijiiii- 
eelf."  Vtut  a  solicitor  cannot  Uc  allowcil  to  take  any  benelit 
fi-oni  liis  own  iirorc>>ioii;il  ii!;iior;iiicc.  A  solicitor  is  Itonnd  to 
have  lull  i)roiessional  knowledj^as  and  to  i;ive  the  intbrniation 
to  his  elient.  If  a  solicitor  is  employed  to  })rei)are  u  deed,  or 
to  make  a  will,  the  law  imputes  to  liim  a  knowledi^e  of  all  the 
legal  conse(piences  to  result  therefrom,  and  i-cfjuii'cs  that  lie 
Bhould  distinctly  and  clearly  point  out  to  his  elient  all  those 
consequences  from  which  a  benefit  may  arise  to  himself  from 
the  instrument  so  prepared.  If  he  fail  to  do  so,  he  cannot,  i..^ 
against  his  client  or  any  one  claiming  under  him,  derive  any 
benefit  under  the  instrument.^ 

The  principles  which  apply  in  the  case  of  dealings  between 
solicitor  and  client,  are  also  applicalde  to  the  case  of  a  counsel 
employed  by  a  man  as  his  confidential  adviser;*  to  the  case  of 
a  man  who  has  constituted  himself  the  legal  a<lvisL'r  of  an- 
other,'or  has  offered  him  legal  advice  in  the  matter;®  and  to 
the  case  of  the  clerk  of  a  solicitor  who  has  acquired  the  con- 
fidence of  a  client  of  his  master.'*  In  Parnell  r.  Tyler,^ 
where,  on  a  sale  by  a  mortgagee,  the  purchaser  had  employed 
a  clerk  of  the  solicitor  of  the  mortgagee  to  bid  for  him,  the 
transaction  was  set  aside. 

»  Wnlkcr  v.  Smith,  29  Ecav.  304.  JlTabe  v.  Ilussey,  2  Dow  it  C\.  440,  5 

•Ilindson  v.  \VeatlicrilI.  5  I).  M.  cfe  lili-j^li's  X.  S.  715;  Carter  v.  Palmer.  H 

G   301  •  see  Raworth  i:  Marriott,  1  M.  V\.  it  Fin.  G57,  7i»7;  Brown  c.  Kennedy. 

4K.  043.  33Bcav.  133. 

'  Sc^ravo  v.  Kirwan,  Beat.  1  ")7  ;  Mac-  *  Tate  v.  Williamson,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  528 ; 

donakfc.  Lillic.  1  Bllirli,  315;  Bnlklov  2  Ch.  App.   «.") ;  see  Wyse  f.  Lambert, 

V.  AVilford,  2  C'l.  it  Fin.  I«i2,  s  Blitrh'.s  10  Ir.  Ch.  370. 

N.  S.  Ill ;  Bayly  v.  'Wilkins.  3  .T.  it  L.  '  Davis  r.  Abraham.  5  W.  R.  465. 

6S0;  Nanney  r.  Williams,  22  Beav.  452;  'Hobday  v.   Fcters,  28  Boav.    349; 

Corl'ey   v.    Stafford,    1    D.    <t   J.    238;  X'esbitt  v.    Berridjrc,    32   Beav.    2S4; 

Greenfield  v.  Bates,  5  Ir.  Ch.  210;  see  Foillon  v.  Martin,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  (.\mer.) 

LanMev  r.  Fi^^her,  0  Beav.  100  ;  Waters  500. 

V.  Tiiorn,  22  Beav.  547.  "  2  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S.  195. 

*  I'urcell  I',  ilacnamara,  14  Ves.  01 ; 


*  Poillon  V.  Martin,  1  Sandf.  Ch  TjCO. 


FR.M  I)  imm:simi;u. 


Coiisidcrntions  of  a  liki'  iiatuic  ajiply  to  the  c:iso  of  persons 
stanilini;  in  tlio  relation  nl"  principal  ami  airi-nl.  A  person 
who  is  an  aircMit  for  anutluM"  umlortakcs  a  iluly  in  which  tiicro 
is  :i  contiilont'o  rop«»scil,  and  •.vliicli  ho  is  hcnitul  to  execute  to 
tlio  utmost  advantai^e  of  the  |)erson  wlio  employs  him.  The 
]»riueipal  is  entitled  to  the  full  hi-nolit  <>f  the  l>est  exertions  of 
the  atrent.  An  ai^cnt  cannot  he  allowed  to  i)lace  himself  in  a 
situation  which,  unck'r  ordinary  circumstances,  mii^ht  tempt 
him  not  to  do  that  which  is  the  best  for  liis  principal,  lie 
may  not  derive  any  profit  or  advantage  from  the  business  in 
which  he  is  employed,  beyond  the  compensation  to  which  he 
i.-  entitled  for  his  services.'  * 

'  East  India  Co.  r.  ITcnclinnin,  1  Vo:*.  orowirz,  3  K.   «t  .T.   2.10;  Marwcll  ». 

Jr.  289;  Masscy  «'.   iMvis,  2  Vt-a.  Jr.  I'ort  Ti-nant  Patent  Steam  Fufl  (.'o  ,  24 

.•{17;    Ez-iHirte   Iliiglu-!',    fi    Ves.  ('>17;  lU-av.  r.t:> ;  Tyrn-ll  r.  1  tank  of  London, 

York  IJiiildinirs  Co.  r.  .M'Kcnzic,  3  Pat.  !'•  H.    L.  2i),' 3'.' :    .Vttwool   i;.   Merry- 

Sc.    Ap.  ;;".ts,  3   Uoss's   L.  C.  Sc.   30.');  wcatiuT,   37   L.  J.Ch.  35;  seo  liensun 

Kotliscliild  f.  Brockman,   2   Dow  «fe  fl.  v.    Hcatliorii,    1    Y.    tfe    C.  C.  C.    32fi ; 

\X^.    ')   lilif^irii  N.    S.    If..');   lk'n!»<in    r.  llitclii.'    v.     Ct)U|iiT,     28    Hcnv.    314; 

Ilcathorn,  1  Y.  i  C.  C.  C  312;  IJcntk-y  ^Val^llttln   v.    blaiulon,    1    D.  J.   tic   S. 

r.  Craven,  18  lieav.  75;  Beck  v.  Kant-  678. 


♦  Rc.id  r.  Warner,  5  Paige,  650;  Banker  v.  Miles,  80  Me.  431 ;  Knabc 
r.  Pemot.  10  La.  An.  13 ;  Meeker  v.  York,  13  La.  An.  18;  Bruce  r.  Daven- 
port. oO  Barb.  349;  Grant  t.  Seitzinger,  2  Penna.  525;  M:is.sie  r.  Watt.s,  0 
Cninch.  14s  ;  Church  v.  Sterling,  10  Ct.  38S  ;  flyers'  Appeal,  3  Barr,  403; 
Mi-I)«)nal(l  r.  Fitliian,  1  (Jilman.  20'.i;   Kanada  r.  North,  14  Mo.  015. 

Tiie  paramount  and  vital  principle  of  tlu-  law  iroveniing  the  relation 
f)t*  principal  and  agent,  is  good  faith  ;  and  so  sedulously  is  this  principle 
guarded,  that  all  departures  from  it  are  esteemed  frauds  upon  the  conti- 
dence  bestowed.     Kcighler  v.  Savage  Manuf.  Co.,  12  Md.  383. 

An  agent  who  purchases  proi)erty  for  himself,  which  he  is  employed  to 
purcha-ue  for  another,  l»ecoujes  a  trustee  for  his  principal.  Massie  r.  Watt.n, 
»  (ranch,  148;  Church  r.  Sterling,  10  Ct.  3S8  ;  Parkhurst  r.  Alexander,  1 
John.H.  Ch.  394  ;  James  r.  M'lvernan,  0  Johns.  543  ;  McKinley  r.  Irvine.  13 
Ala.  881;  Wellford  r.  Chancellor,  5  Graft.  39;  Matthews  v.  Light,  32  Me. 
305  ;  Hchedda  t.  Sawyer,  4  McLean,  181  ;  Blount  r.  Bobeson,  3  Jones'  E(j. 
73;  (;ardner  e.  Ogilen,  22  N.  Y.  327;  Moore  r.  M.andelbaum,  H  Midi.  433; 
Pill-bury  r.  PilM.ury,  17  Me.  107;  Burrill  r.  liuli,  3  Samlf.  (  h.  15;  Ilar- 
jjravffl  r.  King,  5  Ired.  Kq.  491. 

An  agent  who  iH  emj'loyed  to  sill  prupi  rty,  can  not  make  himself  agent 


FRAUD  I'RRSUMKD.  173 

There  is  no  riilu  to  prevent  an  ai^ent  from  dt'aliii;f  with  his 
principal  in  respect  of  the  matter  in  wliidi  Ik-  is  emj)hjye(l 
as  agent.  l»iit  an  agent  who  seeks  to  iiph-ild  ;i  transaction 
between  himself  and  his  |>riiici]i.il,  mnst  he  ahle  tu  show  tn 
the  Batifaction  of  the  court  that  he  gave  his  principal  the  same 
advice  in  the  matter  as  an  independent  and  disintcresterj 
adviser  wonld  have  done,  and  made  a  full  disclosure  of  all  he 
knew  respecting  the  property,  and  that  the  jirincii)al  knew 
M'lth  wh(»m  he  \vas  dealing,  and  made  no  ohjeetion  to  tlie 
transaction,  and  that  the  jirice  was  just  and  fair.'  *     However 


'York  Bnildiniis  Co.  v.  M'IConzio.  3  »>.  Kornan,  2  Dr.  tt  War.  31  ;  Trcvclyan 

Pat.  Sc.  Ap.  li'.lS,  ;i  Ross'  U  C.  Se.   305 ;  v.  Charter,  4  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S.  20'.» ;  C'liar- 

Lowtlior  V.  Lowtlier,  13  Ves.  103;  W  alt  tor  r.  Truvelvan,  11  CI.  &  Fin.  714,  732; 

V.   Grove.,   2   Sch.   A  Let   4!)2  ;   Wood-  Mulliallcn  (-."Maruni.  3  l)r.  .t  War.  317; 

house  »•.  Meredith,  1  J.  <fc  W.  2ii4 ;  Lord  Murphy  (•.  (/.-hea,    2  J.  &  L.  422.  425 ; 

^elsev  V.  l\hoades,  2  Sim.  A:.  St.  41,    1  Clarke'/'.  Tiiipiiitr. '•»  Heav.  284  ;   Blove'H 

lili^li's  N.  S.  1  ;  Cane  v.   Lord  Allen,  2  Trust.  1  Mac.  it  (i.  488;  Lewi.s  v.  flill- 

Dow.  2'.»4;  Itotiisehiid   ;•.   I'.roekman,  2  man.  3  11.  L.  607;  Rhodes  v.  Bate,  L.  K. 

Dow  it  CI.   IKS.  5   ]{li-li'3  N.  S.    IC.o;  1  Ch.  Ap.  252. 
Barker  v.  Harrison,  2  Coll.  540 ;  Molony 


for  other  parties  for  the  purchase  thereof.  Moore  r.  Mantlelbaum,  8  >Iicb. 
433. 

An  auctioneer  can  not  purchase  at  a  sale  made  by  hini.sc'lf.  Kearney  r. 
Taylor,  1")  How.  494;  Vcazie  v.  Winiams,  8  How.  134;  Ingcr.-ou  r.  Stark- 
weather, Walk.  Cli.  34G. 

If  an  aLTcnt  converts  property,  the  principal  may,  at  his  election,  ratify 
the  transaction,  and  claim  whatever  profits  are  nuule  by  it.  Motley  v. 
Motley,  7  Iretl.  Eq.  211. 

If  a  person  at  a  judicial  sale  represents  that  he  is  bidding  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  owner,  and  thereby  prevents  competition,  he  becomes  a  mere 
trustee  for  the  owner.  Cocks  v.  Izard,  7  Wall.  559  ;  Brewer  r.  Lynch.  1 
Paige,  147;  Denton  r.  McKenzic.  1  Dessau.  289;  Martin  r.  Blight,  4  J.  J. 
Marih.  491 ;  Wood  c.  Hudson,  5  Munf.  423. 

An  agent  buying  property  under  the  judgment  of  his  principal,  becomes 
a  mere  trustee  for  his  principal  if  he  buys  for  less  than  the  claim.  Smith 
e.  Lansing,  22  N.  Y.  520  :  Eishleman  r.  Lewis,  49  Penn.  410. 

*  Brooke  r.  Berry,  2  Gill.  83  ;  Teackle  v.  Bailey,  2  Brock.  43  ;  Torrey 
r.  Bank  of  Orleans,  9  Paige.  049 ;  8.  c.  7  Hill,  200  ;  Dob.son  r.  Rjicey,  7  N. 
Y.  216  ;  Moseley  r.  Buck.  3  Munf.  232 ;  Butler  r.  Haskell.  4  Dessau.  051 ; 
Taylor  c.  Kno.x,  1  Dana,  391  ;  s.  c.  5  Dana,  400;  Marshall  r.  Joy,  17  Vt. 
546  ;  Casey  v.  Casey,  14  111.  112  ;  Fisher's  Appeal,  34  Penn.  29  ;  Moore  r. 


171  FIIMI)    I'KKSrMED. 

lair  tilt'  trail.-. let icii  may  U-  in  titlur  rr-]»i'c'ts,  any  underliaml 
•  li'alini;  till  tin-  I'art  <>!"  an  aircnt  will  n-iitlcr  it  impeachable  at 
the  election  of  the  |»rincij»al.  It  is  immaterial  that  the  agent 
may  have  taken  no  advantage  l»y  the  hargain.  It  is  snflicient 
that  he  has  not  acted  with  that  good  I'aith  which  the  court 
re<iuires,  and  has  ]>la('ed  himself  in  a  situation  which  might 
tempt  an  agt-nt  tn  allow  his  own  interest  to  come  into  contlict 
with  that  which  his  duty  retj[uires  him  to  do.*  - 

An  agent  who  is  employed  to  sell,  cannot  hecomc  the  pur- 
chaser surreptitiously  and  without  the  knowledge  or  assent  of 
hib  employer  ;*' t  nor  can  an  agent,  wIkj  is  employed  to  j)ur- 
chasc,  purchase  secretly  from  himself,  or  from  his  own  tnistee,':}: 

'  (Jillctt  V.  Peppcrcorne,  3  Rcnv.  78;  Kx-parte  Iltiichc*,  0  Vcs.  617;  Wood- 
Murphy  >•.  O'Shea. 'J . I.  <t  L.  I'J'i;  Clinr-  house  V.  MiTodith.  1  J.  it  W.  20t  ; 
tor  V.  Trcvelynn,  11  CI.  <fc  Kin.  714;  Trovelynn  /•.  Chart  or,  4  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S. 
Clnrke  r.  Tii)pinir,  9  Bt-nv.  284  ;  Wilson  2t>'.i;  Churti^r  v.  Trevelyan.  11  CI.  A- 
f.  Sliort,  G  Ha.  3s:! :  Ilobdiiy  i.  PcttTS,  Fin.  714;  Kili^ccunibo  t'.  Strani^or,  1 
28  Bt'av.  ;J4S) ;  Tyrrell  v.  Bunk  of  Lon-  Jur.  400 ;  Murphy  v.  U\Shca.  2  J.  d-  L. 
(Ion,  10  II.  J.  26;  Wentworth  v.  Lloyd,  422;  Lewis  v.  llillmnn,  3  II.  L.  607; 
32  Beav.  467.  Bentlev  i'.  Craven,  is  Beav.  7."). 

'  York  Buildin;;-^  Co.  v.  M'Konzio.  3  '  East  India  Co.  / .  llenchmnn,  1  VA. 

Fat.  Sc.  Ap.  3'J8,  3  Ross's  L.  C.  Sc.  305 ;  Jr.  2S9 ;  JIaasey  v  Davies,  3  Vea.  317  ; 


Mnndelbaum,  8  ilich.  433;  Farnani  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212  ;  Comstock  r. 
Comstock.  57  liarb.  4.")3 

If  a  party  (.ntcring  into  a  contract  has  the  full  means  of  knowiedgx; 
committed  to  him  by  the  other  party,  and  does  not  clioosc  or  ncgl(k;t3  to 
avail  himself  of  tliem,  it  is  his  own  fault  if  the  barjiain  turns  out  unfavor- 
able.    Fatnam  r.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212. 

♦  Mnore  r.  Moore,  5  N.  Y.  2."")G  ;  s.  c.  4  Sandf  Ch.  :]?  ;  Gould  r.  Gouhl, 
30  Barb.  270;  Se '/a r  r.  Edwards,  11  Lei<,'h,  213;  Shannon  r.  Marmaihike, 
14  Tex.  217;  Barton  r.  Mo8.s,  32  111.  50;  Cram  r.  Mitdull,  1  Sandf  Cli. 
2.')1 ;  Cuni'icrland  Coal  Co.  r.  Sherman,  30  Barb.  T^TtZ. 

t  Dolison  r.  Hacey,  3  Sandf,  Ch.  00;  Torrey  r.  Bank  of  New  Orleans,  0 
PaiUf,  041)  ;  Banks  r.  .ludah,  H  Ct.  14.'). 

Such  a   pur(  base   is  not  void,  but  voidable.      Gaines  r.  Acre,  Minor, 

lil. 

There  is  no  di.stinction  bitwcin  a  judicial  and  a  private  sale,where  the 
agent  controls,  and  the  officer  arts  under  his  instructions.  Moore  c,  Moore, 
5  N.  Y.  a-jfl:  Bridyen  r,  Atkins.  2r»  Te.x.  5J8S 

J  Conkey  r.  Bond,  30  .\.  Y.  427  ;  8.  c  13  Abb,  Pr.  (N.  S.)  415  ;  Marshall 
r.  .Joy,  17  Vt   540. 

The  rule  applies  only  to  agents  who  are  relied   upon   for  counsel  and 


FRAUD   PRKSIMI'I).  17.-, 

or  for  liis  own  Itciiclit.'  TIu;  rule  Mpplicfi  wliptlicr  flic  .'ifcnt 
t'iii|)loyc<l  f(.  jiiii-cliasc  was  act iiully  in  llic  jio.^itioii  of  ;i  \ciuIor 
or  intfiulcd  to  place  liiiiisclf  in  that  |)(»sition.^  So  alx)  an 
ai^unt  who  is  ciMi>loyud  to  settle  a  debt,  or  to  make  an  arraiii^e- 
ment,  cannot  imrcliaso  up  the  deht,  or  any  charge  upon  the 
])roperty  which  is  the  suhject  of  the  arran_i,^einent,  fur  his  own 
heneflt.'  The  disiihilily  extends  to  the  clei'k  (»f  an  ai^n-nt  mIio 
in  the  course  of  his  employment,  lias  aecjuired  a  knowledge  of 
the  property  of  the  principal.* 

The  rule  that  an  a,i,a'nt  dealini;  M'ith  his  j)rineij)al  must 
ini})art  kiiowlcdn'e  accpiired  in  his  ulHce,  does  not  apjdy  where 
the  relation  has  ceased,  and  there  is  another  agent  with  e<jual 
means  of  knowledge,  to  guard  the  interest  of  the  principal  in 
the  transaction.'  After  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent 
has  wholly  ceased,  or  the  agent  has  divested  himself  of  that 
character,  the  parties  are  restored  to  their  competency  to  deal 
with  each  other.*'  Ihit  an  agent  who  has,  in  the  course  of  his 
emjdoyment,  acquired  some  peculiar  knowledge  as  to  the 
property,  cannot,  after  the  cessation  of  the  relation,  use  the 
knowledge  so  acquired  for  his  own  benefit,  and  to  the  preju- 
dice of  his  former  client.' 


Rothschild  v.  Brockman,  2  Dow  &  CI. 
188;  DriscoU  v.  Bromley,  1  .lur.  2:58; 
Oiliett  J'.  Pcppercornt',  3  Beav.  78 ; 
Barker  v.  Harrison,  2  Coll.  5»t'. ;  Bent- 
ley  ''.  Cniven,  18  Beav.  7"> ;  Jlatiirin  >>. 
Trediiiiiick,  H  L.  T.  X.  S.  82  ;  Tyrrell  v. 
Bank  of  London,  10  H.  L  2(5. 

•Lees  V.  Niittall,  2  M.  .fc  K.  819; 
Taylor  t-.  Salmon,  4  M.  it  C.  134  ;  see 
Cni-ter  »>.  Palmer,  8  Cl.  <t  Fin.  f.57; 
Beek  V.  Kantoriiwiez,  3  K.  it  .1.  230; 
llolxlay  >'.  Peters,  28  Beav.  310. 

*  Bock  r.  Kantorowicz,  3  K.  <fc  J. 
242. 


'  Cane  v.  Lord  Allen.  2  Dow.  294  ; 
Heed  I'.  Norris,  2  M.  tk  C.  'iCl  ;  Carter 
V.  Palmer.  8  Cl.  &  Fin.  fi.')7.  11  Bli-li's 
N.  S.  397  ;  Hobday  v.  Peters,  28  Beav. 
349. 

*  Gardner  v.  Ogdcn,  8  Smith  (Amer.) 
327. 

'  Scott  V.  Dunbar,  1  Moll.  442. 

•  Cliarter  v.  Trevelyan.  4  L.  J.  Oh.  N. 
S.  2o9;  see  York  Buildini^s  Co.  v. 
M'Kenzie,  3  Pat.  So.  Ap.  379, »»7>ra,  pp. 
ir)3,  \r>'.K  ir,7. 

'  Carter  r.  Palmer,  8  Cl.  ck  Fin.  657; 
Holman  i-.  Loynes,  4  D.  il.  «t  G.  270l 


direction,  and  whose  employment  is  rather  a  trust  than  a  service,  and  not 
to  those  who  are  employed  merely  as  instruiv.ents  in  the  performance  of 
Bome  appointed  service.  Deep  River  Gold  Mining  Co.  c.  Fox,  4  Ired. 
Eq.  CI. 


17G  >M:Ari>  pkisimup. 

Ail  ni^out,  for  iustanco,  who  in  the  course  of  liis  iiiijiloy- 
ment  an  such  has  discovtTi'd  a  (k-tcct  in  the  title  of  liia  ein- 
plover,  cannot  after  the  rehition  has  ceased  use  his  knowledj^e 
BO  gained  to  ac(iuire  a  title  for  himself.'*  Nor  can  a  man 
who  18  employed  as  a  C(»nlidential  airent  esca|H'  from  liahility 
under  the  ]>rcti'nci'  that  the  l»u>ine88  has  been  entrusted  to  an 
ai,'ent  and  not  to  him,  unh'ss  it  can  be  shown  that  the  agent 
was  intended  to  act,  and  in  fact  acted  independently  of  him.' 

There  is  no  rule  i»reventing  the  same  agent  from  acting 
for  the  opposing  parties,  ]»ut  he  niu.-t  he  able  to  satisfy  the 
court  that  the  parties  were  substantially  at  arms'  length  in 
the  transaction,  and  that  there  has  been  the  utmost  fairness 
throughout.'  f 

A  gift  by  a  man  to  a  person  who  has  heeu  for  many  years 
liis  confidential  agent  and  adviser  is  valid,  unless  the  j)arty 
who  seeks  to  set  it  aside  can  show  that  some  advantige  was 
taken  by  the  agent  of  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the 
donor.  If  the  conduct  of  the  agent  in  the  matter  appears 
to  have  been  fair,  honest,  and  Jjond  JiJe,  it  is  immaterial  tliat 
the  deed  of  gift  may  have  been  drawn  up  by  his  scdicitor 
without  the  intervention  of  a  disinterested  thiril  party.*  The 
rule  with  respect  to  the  c^ipacity  of  an  agent  to  accept  a  gift 
from  his   principal   is   not  so  strict  as  it  is  in  the  ease  of 


•  Ringo  t>.  BinnB,  10  Peters  ( Amer.),  195  ;  Mntthie  v.  Edwnrds,  16  L.  J.  CIl 
201*.  405. 

»  UhotloB  V.  BaU-8,  L.    U.   1   Hi.  Ap.  *  Iliintor  v.  Alkiim.  3   M.  A  K.  118. 

^U'l.  Nicol   V.   Vnui;iiiiii,   1    (1.  «t   Kin.  r.t.'» ; 

*  Hc'Rxe  V.  Hritiiit.  0  D.  .M.  tt  <;.  (^'l^^•,  si-o   Wyso   r.   Lumbort,  It".  Ir.  Ch.  .ST'J ; 
(Jnrvt-y   »'.   M.-.Minii.  '.•  Ir.  K<|.  r>-if>\  sro  Uhotli's  v.  liiite,  L.  U.  1  Ck  \\t.  242. 
Kliixk's    f.    licuuvoir,    tl   liligli'a  N.  S. 


♦  Rinpn  r.  IJiniiH,  10  IVf.  209. 

t  On-cn\V(>«Kl  r.  S|)rin^'.  TA  Harh.  WITi.  A  person  rjin  not  l)o  njront  for 
both  particH  when  ju<luiiu-nt  or  <lis(nti()n  is  to  he  cxcrci-icd.  Vandrrpoi-I 
r.  Kcamoy,  2  E.  I).  Sinitli,  170;  Duiilol.  r.  Hii  tianh,  2  K.  I).  Siniili,  isl; 
Central  Ins.  Co.  r.  Protcclive  Ins.  Co.,  11  N,  Y.  bo. 


FRAii)  i'i:i:simi:d.  177 

nttorncy  and  client,  trustee;  and  rvHtui  (juc  iruKt,  and  ^'uardi.in 
and  ward.  The  relation  in  which  the  parties  stand  to  each 
other  beiii;::  of  a  sort  less  km.wii  and  deUnite  than  in  those 
other  cases,  the  jealousy  is  diiniiiishcd.^ 

The  rule  of*  equity  with  respect  to  dealings  hot  ween 
guardian  and  ward  is  extremely  strict,^  *  and  inijjoses  a  gen- 
eral inability  on  the  ])arties  to  deal  with  each  other.M'  Where 
the  relation  of  guardian  and  ward  is  subsisting  between  two 
parties,  if  a  gift  or  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  gift  proceeds 
from  the  ward  towards  the  guardian,  wlien  the  ward  has  just 
come  of  full  age,  such  transactions  are  subject  to  be  viewed 
with  the  utmost  jealousy  by  courts  of  equity.  It  is  almost 
impossible  that  transactions  of  such  a  nature  can  be  sustained, 
unless  the  party  claiming  the  benclit  of  the  gift  can  show  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  his  influence  has  not  been 
misapplied  in  the  particular  transaction.  Unless  it  appears 
to  be  a  spontaneous  act  on  the  part  of  the  ward,  or  unless  he 
was  informed  in  all  the  particulars  of  the  nature,  character, 
and  probable  consequence  of  his  proceeding,  such  a  transaction 
cannot  stand,*  X  Transactions  between  guardian  and  ward 
cannot  be  allowed  to  stand,  even  although  they  may  have 
taken  place  after  the  guardianship  has  come  to  a  close,  unless 

'Hunter  v.   Atkins,  3  M.  «V:K.  113;  2'2fi.   Tutor  rem  pupilli  cmcrc  non  polc^-t. 

but  see  llobilay  v.   Tctcrs,    28   Bcav.  Di;,'.  xviii,  tit.  1,  K-tr.  347. 
349.  *  Arclicr  v.  Hudson,  15  L.  J.  CI).  211  ; 

*  ITylton  1'.  Ilvlton,  2  Vcs.  548,  540;  Mulliallen    v.    Maruni,   3    Dr.    &    War 
Hatch  V.  llatcli.'.t  Vt-s.  2<.t2.  317  ;  see  OKiin  v.  Sain'.nrn.  2  Atk.  ir,; 

•  See  Dawsou  i-.  ilass.^'y,  1  B.  «fe   B.  Bcasley  v.  Magrath,  2  Sch.  <fc  Lef.  35. 


♦  nanna  v.  Spotts,  5  B.  Mon.  3G2 ;  Wliilt  r.  Parker,  8  Barb.  48;  Van- 
nickle  r.  Malta,  IG  La.  An.  3'2."). 

t  Galatian  r.  Erwin,  1  Ilopk.  48;  Lee  r.  Fox,  0  Dana,  171 ;  Walker  r. 
Walker,  101  Mass.  1G9 ;  Scott  r.  Frcelaud,  7  S.  &  M.  409 ;  Meek  c.  Perry,  30 
Miss.  190. 

X  Waller  r.  Armistcad,  3  Leigli,  11:  Love  r.  Lea,  2  Ired.  Eq.  627. 
There  is  no  distinction  between  a  deed  {^iven  as  a  gratuity,  and  a  deed  of 
release,  acquittance,  or  discbarge.     Waller  r,  Armistead,  2  Leigli,  11. 


178  rn\n)  rur.srMi:D. 

tlio  iiilliu'noo  Mlilch  is  ])rcsunied  to  ari.si'  from  tlie  relation 
lia^j  ceasi'*!  t«)  t-xist.*  *  The  inHiiuncc  may  font iiuie  to  exist 
for  a  coiisidcralile  time  alter  tlic  actual  relation  has  ceased  to 
exist.'  As  lontj  as  the  accounts  between  the  jtartiis  have  not 
been  fully  settKd,  or  the  estate  still  remains  in  some  Bort 
\inder  the  control  of  the  ir'iardiaii,  the  intluence  will  he  i»re- 
sumed  to  exist.^f  The  inlluence  will  indeed  he  j)resumed 
to  exist,  unless  there  is  distinct  evidence  of  its  determination.* 
After  the  relation  has  entirely  ceased  not  merely  in  name 
hut  in  laet,  and  a  full  and  fair  settlement  of  all  tran.sactions 
arisine:  out  of  the  relation  has  been  made,  and  sullicient  time 
lias  elapsed  to  put  the  parties  in  a  ])osition  of  complete 
independence  to  each  other,  there  is  no  objection  to  any 
bounty  or  ^n-ant  conferred  by  the  ward  on  his  former  •guardian.' 
It  is  not  necessary  for  the  ajtplication  of  the  principle  that 

•  Ilvlton  V.  Ilvlt  in.  2  A>s.  5tS,  r.lO  ;  Bon,  15  L.  J.  Cli.  211  ;  XIaiiland  r.  Back- 

Ilntch   V.   Hatch",  y  Ve>.  2'.t2;  Carey  f.  housp.    17    L.    J.   Ch.    121;    Davics   v. 

Curty,  2   bdi.   <k   Lef.  173;  Dawson  v.  Davies.  "J  Jur.  N.  S.  Iti02. 

Mass.-v,  1    B.   d:    li.   21'.>;    Avlward  i'.  '  llylton  c,  Ilylton,  2  Yea.  647;  Daw- 

Kianii'V.   2   B.   it    B.  47S;    (VNtill    v.  Bon   v.    Massey,"  1    15.    «fc    B.   229;    soo 

Ilaniinill.   Beat.    (il8;   Maitland   i:  Irv-  Steadman  i:  r'allin,'.  3  Atk.  423;   Mell- 

iiiir,   l.">  Sim.   4:'<7;  An-Iur  v.  lludscjn,  isli  i:  yivWinh,  1  Siin.  it  St.  KiS;  Uevett 

1.'.    L.   J.   (-1).   211;    Maitland   c.  Back-  r.  Harvey,  »7..  5i»2;  Matthew   v.  Brise, 

hc.iiBe,  17  U  J.  Cli.  121 ;  K^pey  i:  Luke,  14   Beav!  343;  Kspey  f.  Lake,  10  Ha. 

l(t  Ha.  2CU;  .sec   Rhodes  «•.  Bate,  L.  U.  200. 

1  Ch.  Ap.  252.  *  lUiodcs  V.  Bate,  L.  R.    1   Gi.  Ap. 

'Hutch   I'.   Hatch,  9  Ves.  202 ;  Ayl-  252;  see   Archer  v.  Hudson,  16   L.   J, 

ward    V.    Kearncv.   2    B.    it    B.    4t'i"3 ;  Ch.  211. 

O'Neill   ••.  Hiiiniiiill.  Beat.  filH;   Uevett  »  llylton  v.  Hylton,  2  Ves.  647,  649; 

r.  llnrvey,  I  Sim.  it  ."^t  5'i2  ;  Maitlaiid  8oo   BeasKy    r.    Majjrath,  2  Seh.  «t  Lcf. 

V.  Irving,  15  Sim.  437;  Arciier  v.  Hud-  35;  liosa  i-.  Steele,  1  Ir.  Etj.  17L 


♦  Lcc  r.  Fox,  0  Dana,  71;  Johnson  v.  Johnson,  5  Ala.  00;  Fish  r. 
Miller,  1  HolT.  Ch.  207;  Hipalie  r.  Moreworthy,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  :)[)[);  Brewer 
r.  Vanars<lalf,  G  Dana,  201 ;  l{icliard.sou  r.  Liuncy,  7  B.  Moii.  oil  ;  Sherry 
r   StunKbiiry,  3  M<l.  1520. 

t  William.s  ».  Powell,  1  Ired.  Eq.  400;  Galo  r.  Wells,  12  Barli,  84; 
Waller  r.  Arinistead,  2  Lei^di,  11  ;  Wri;,dit  r.  Arnold,  14  B.  Mon.  0:{8.  A 
release  freely  ond  fairly  ^nven  without  mi»rcpre.sentation,  or  undue  influ- 
cn<e-i  is  valid.  Kirliy  c.  Taylor,  (J  Johns.  Cb.  242;  Kirliy  r.  Turner,  1 
Hopk  :J00;  Bouthall  r.  Clark,  3  Stew.  &,  Port.  y:jy;  Myers  c.  liives,  11 
Ala.  TOO.  * 


rnAii)  rurscMDi).  ]7f) 

tlio  relation  of  /guardian  and  wanl  should  exist  in  jxTleet 
btrietuess  ot"  terms,  or  that  the  ^niardian  Hlunild  ])c  a  ^u  irdiau 
aj)poiuted  hy  the  ('oiii't  ot"  Chancery,  or  numinatcd  hy  the 
lather.  Jf  the  y(»un:^  person  lives  with,  and  is  bnnight  nj)  or 
under  the  care,  inlluence,  and  control  of  a  near  relative  of 
mature  a^e — if  the  relation  of  •ruardian  and  ward  thus  subsist 
between  them — the  principle  is  e<pially  applicalde.' * 

The  pi'inci[)le  applies  to  the  case  of  a  thiiil  jiai'ty  Avho 
makes  himself  a  party  with  the  guardian  who  obtains  a  secur- 
ity from  his  ward.'' 

The  case  of  i)arent  and  child  comes  within  the  same  prin- 
ciple.^ The  influence  which  a  parent  has  naturally  over  a 
child  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  court  to  watch  over  and  ]»rotect 
the  interests  of  the  child.  A  child  may  deal  with  or  make  a 
gift  to  a  parent,  and  such  dealing  or  i^ift  is  good,  if  it  be  not 
tainted  with  parental  inlluence,  operating  on  the  hopes  or 
fears  or  necessities  of  the  child.  A  child  is  presumed  to  be 
under  j)arental  inlluence,  as  long  as  the  dominion  of  the 
parent  lasts.  "Whilst  that  dominion  lasts,  it  lies  on  the  parent 
upholding  the  transaction  or  maintaining  the  gift  to  disprove 
the  exercise  of  parental  influence  by  showing  that  the  child 
was  really  a  free  agent,  and  had  competent  independent  ad- 
vice, or  had  at  least  competent  means  of  forming  an  inde- 
pendent judgment,  and  fully  understood  what  he  was  doing 
and  was  desirous  of  doing  it.*  f     The  principle  applies  for  at 

'  Bcasloy  v.  Jtngrath,  2  Scb.  &  Lcf.  Llowcllin   v.  Cobbold,  1  Sm.  A'  G.  3T0; 

.31  ;  Kevott  V.   Harvey,   1    Sim.   ife  St.  I'rideaux   v.   Lonsdale,   1    D.   J.    «k  S. 

602 ;    Mulhallen   »■.   Jlnnim,    3   Dr.   «fe  433. 

War.  317  ;  Archer  v.  Hudson.  15  L.  J.  »  Espcy  i>.  Lake,  10  Ha.  260. 

Ch.  211  ;  AUfrey  v.   Allfrey,  1  JIao.  &  *  Casbome  v.  Barsbam.  2  Bear.  Vrt. 

G.  98;  Espey  w.'Lake,  10  Ha.  2G0,  202;  *  Carpenter  v.   Heriot,    1    Ed.   838; 


*  Waller  V.  Arniistcad.  2  Leigh,  11 ;  Ilanna  r.  Spott?,  5  B.  ^ton.  3G2 ; 
Willman  it  al  Appeal,  28  Pcnn.  370. 

t  The  presumption  is  that  the  advanrement  of  the  interest  of  the 
child  was  tlic  object  iu  view,  and  the  deed  is  not  prima  jack  void.     It  ia 


ISO  rKAii)  1'Ki:si:mi:i). 

least  ft  year  after  ll»e  cdiiiiiii;  of  ay^v.  of  the  child,  ami  will  ex- 
tend Iteyond  the  year,  if  the  duiniiiion  lasts.'  The  court  will 
indeed  j^resunie  the  continuance  of  the  influence,  uidess  there 
is  a  distinct  evidence  of  its  dcterniinalion.-  Wlurc  the  par- 
ental inlluence  is  disitr(»vi'd  or  that  inlluence  has  ceased,  a 
dealinir  l»etween  ]»arent  and  child,  or  a  ^'ift  from  a  child  to  a 
parent,  stands  on  the  same  fodtiiii,^  as  any  other  dealing,'  or 
•  'ift.'  The  entreaty  of  a  siik  iatlier  to  a  child  does  not 
anu'unt  to  undue  inlluence,*  iSor  is  the  mere  fact  of  a 
daughter  soon  after  coniiuf^  of  a'j:e  voluntarily  givin*,'  securities 
to  a  creditor  of  lier  father  in  payment  of  his  dehts  of  itself 
cround  for  imputing  undue  inHuencc  to  the  father.' 

Transactions  between  parent  and  child  which  proceed 
upon  arrangements  between  tlicm  I'or  the  settlement  of  the 
family  property,  (.>r  wliich  tend  to  the  peace  and  security  of 
the  familv  and  the  avoidance  of  litigation,  do  not  come  within 

IIcTcn  r.  Heron,  2  Atk.  100;  Yoiinc:  ».  IIni;liton   v.    IIojil'*"".  l-"^   Benv,   800; 

I'eachov,  if>.   '2rA  ;    HhoiUs  »•.  Cook,  4  Wrii^lit  r.  Viiiuk'rpliiiik,  8   I).  M.  «fe  G. 

L.  J.  Cii!  149 ;  CiiHl)(>rne  f.  Unrslinm,  2  1:55;    Bury   v.   Uitpcnhcim,   2rt   Hcav. 

Ikav.    7V);    lloirliton   v.   ll«)i:liti>n,    16  6'.tJ;  Wnrcle  v.   Mckson,   5  .lur.  N.  S. 

licav.   278;    Il«rtoi)p    i-.   Hurtopp.  21  fiyj ;    Duvica   v.   Diivifs,  4   iVxtX.  417; 

Bcnv.  2:.y ;  Baker  v.  Bradley,  7  1>.  M.  Ber.loe  1:  Dawson,  :{4  Benv.  f.f»3  ;  Cliani- 

<t  G.S'.C;  Wri^rht  i'.  Vaiidiiplank,  8  l)ers  c.  Crahhe,  iV*.  ITi?  ;  but  sec  Thorn- 

I).  M.   tt   (1.  Ki'"',  IJt". ;  Bury  r.  Oppeii-  ber  1:  Sluanl,  12  Beav.  68'.t. 

lieirn,  2t'.  l>eav.  .'.'.t4 ;  Savery  r.  Kiuir,  S  '  lUuided  v.  Bute,  L.   U.   1   CIj.  Ap. 

H    L   027.  tp.')r) ;  Jeiuier  r.  Jeniier,  2  I).  252. 

K.  A-  J.  :<'>y  ;  Davies   v.   Davies,  4  GilF.  '  Wright  v.  Vnndorplank,  8  I).  M.  it 

4i7;  Ikrdoe  f.  Dawson,  34  Beav.  003;  G.   13.'>,  140;    Bury  v.  Uppcnheim,  20 

CliarnlHTfl  v.  Crabbe,  li.  4.'.7 ;  I'otts  t>.  Beav.  :)lt4. 

Surr.   ib.  &43 ;  Bealu  v.  Billing,  13  Ir.  '  Farrent  i'.  Blanchford,  1  D.  J.  4  S. 

Ch.  2.'>0.  B'7. 

'  7  H.  L.  722.  per   Lord  Crnnworth.  '  Tliornber  v.  Slienrd,  12  Bonv.  r>89; 

See  Walker  t-.  Symonds,  3  bw,  1,  72;  sec  us  to  undue  influence,  in/nt,  p.  18 1. 


the  <luty,  however,  of  courts  of  equity  carefully  to  watch  and  cxftmine 
the  cirruinHtiUHCH.  attending,'  traiiHat  lions  of  tliis  kind  to  dis<'over  if  any 
undue  influence  lias  been  exercised  in  olitaiiiin^'  tlie  conveyance.  Jciikind 
r.  I»ye,  12  IVt.  241  ;  Taylor  r.  Taylor,  8  How.  1H:J. 

The  impulse  of  filial  duty  nntl  utfection  will  be  deemed  a  satisfactory 
consideration  for  a  d(i<l  in  inslanfes  only  in  wliicli  the  motivjs  arc  shown 
to  have  Ix-en  free  and  uncouslraiucil  in  their  o])cratiun.  Taylor  c.  Taylor, 
8  How.  Ib3. 


FIIAUD  rilKSUilKD.  ISl 

tho  urdiiiary  rules  of  tlio  cuurt  M'ith  inspect  to  |.arcntul  iullu- 
enee.  It"  tho  settleiiieTit  i«  one  by  wliicli  tlic  j)art'iit  acquires 
no  Iteiiefit,  not  alrt'a<ly  ])0S8eH8e(l  I>y  liiiii,  aM<l  lie  a  reasonaljlo 
arran<^enient  and  tV»r  the  henelit  ot"  the  family,  and  be  not 
obtained  through  niisi"ej»i'esentatinii  or  KU|t|)re.-.-ion  of  the 
truth,  it  will  be  8uj»])oi'ted  even  although  it  may  appear  that 
the  parent  diji  exert  parental  iniluenec  and  authority  over  the 
son  to  j)roeure  his  exei-ution  of  it.  If  the  cliild  is  fully  aware 
of  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  transaction,  it  is  of  no  conse- 
quence that  he  may  not  have  had  tlie  advice  of  a  eei»arate 
solicitor;  nor  can  he  be  heard  to  say  that  he  executed  the  set- 
tlement with  precipitancy.  If  the  settlement  be  for  the  benefit 
of  tlie  family,  a  court  of  ecjuity  will  not  inquire  into  the 
degree  of  influence  which  may  have  been  exerted.^  Arrange- 
ments between  members  of  a  family  to  assist  their  several 
objects  or  relieve  their  several  necessities,  are  affected  by  so 
many  j>eculiar  considei'ations  and  are  influenced  by  so  many 
diflerent  motives  that  they  are  withdraMn  from  the  ordinary 
rules  by  which  the  court  is  guided  in  adjudicating  between 
other  parties.^  The  court  does  not  minutely  weigh  the  con- 
siderations on  one  side  or  the  other.  Even  ignorance  of 
rights  may  not  avail  to  impeach  the  transaction.  But  trans- 
actions in  the  nature  of  a  bounty  from  a  child  to  a  parent  soon 
after  coming  of  age,  are  viewed  by  the  court  with  jealousy.' 
If  the  parent  gains  some  advantage  by  the  transaction 
which  he  did  not  previously  possess,  the  general  principles 
M-ith  respect  to  parental  influence  apply,  and  the  transaction 
cannot  be  supported,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  child 


'  Twcildell  V.  Twc'ddcll.  T.  &  R.  1 ;  ner,  2  D.  F.  &  J.  354;  Potts  v.  Surr,  S4 

Bellamy  »-.  Sabine,  2  I'h.  425;  Cooke  y.  Beav.  543;  Williams  v.  Williams,  L.  11. 

Burtchaell,  2  Dr.  A  "War.  105;  Wallace  2  Cli.  Aj.i>.  2'.t5. 

!•.  Wnllnce,  i6.  452;  Iloijhton  r.  lloirh-  "  Bellamy   v.    Sabine,    2   I'll.    4U5; 

ton,  15  Bcav.  2T>i,  305;   Baker  >:  Brail-  Head  r.  Godlce,  .Julin«.  5r;(";. 
lev,  V  I>.  M.   «fc  G.  5117;  Dimsdale  v.  'Baker  v.  Bradley,   7  1>    M.   A  G. 

Dimsdale,  3  Drew.  656;  Jenuer  v.  Jen-  620. 


182 


iH.Mi)  rKi:srMi:i>. 


knew  what  lie  wn.s  doini;  nml  Mas  desirous  of  doini;  it,  nnd 
was  not  unduly  influenced  l>y  lli^i  father.*  The  name  consider- 
ations npi)ly  where  a  third  person  takes  a  benefit  under  a 
deed  executed  hy  a  son  in  favor  of  his  father." 

If,  however,  the  ]>erson  who  takes  the  henefit  is  a  member 
of  the  family,  and  the  |>areiit  himself  takes  no  benefit,  the 
transaction  will  not  be  set  aside,  even  thou_i,di^  considerable 
pressure  may  have  been  nsed  by  the  parent  to  induce  the  son 
to  execute  it.  In  AVychcrley  v.  AVycherley,^  where  the  father 
of  a  familv,  with  some  warmth  of  temper,  insisted  upon  a 
deed  beinc^  executed  by  a  son  for  the  benefit  of  his  two  sisters. 
Lord  Northiiii^ton  would  not  set  it  aside.* 

The  principles  which  <rovern  the  case  of  dealings  of  persons 
standing  in  a  fiduciary  relation  apply  as  between  partners,'* 
between  principal  and  surety,'  and  generally  to  the  case  of 
persons  who  clothe  themselves  with  a  character  which  brings 
them  within  the  range  of  the  principle.'  A  man  who  pos- 
sesses the  confidence  of  another  will  nut  be  allowed  by  a  court 


'  Heron  v.  Heron,  2  Atk.  ir.O; 
Hofchton  V.  llopliton.  15  IJeav.  liTS  ; 
Baker  v.  Brndluy,  7  D.  M.  it  G.  f.20 ; 
Saver}'  v.  KiiiK.  ■'»  H.  L.  (ViT;  sic  IJofjers 
r.  liruce,  Uent.  4Xi'>;  Uliotle^  r.  Couke, 
4  L.  J.  <'li.  1J'.» ;  WiiUiue  i:  Wallace,  3 
Dr.  «t  War.  ■it>'2  ;  .lenner  i'.  .leniier,  '2, 1). 
F.  &  J.  S.'i'J;  I'«tt.s  V.  Surr.  :M  lieav. 
643  ;  Beriloe  v.  Dawson,  tTi.  003. 

•  Berdoc  «•.  Dawson,  ib.  Sec  Scr- 
combc  r.  Saunders,  ib.  38'2. 

•  2  Kd.n.  17.'.. 

♦  li.i.tl.  V  f.  M.iekay,  .'il  Beav.  ir.l. 

*  Boyue  v.  Ferj^nson,  r»  l)ow.  l.M  ; 
Burton  r.  Wookuy,  ti  Madd.  :ir,7 ;  Mnd- 
deford  v.  Auslwick,  1  Situ.  8'.t,  'J  M.  «t 
K  '271»:  Spitfal  f.  Smith,  Taiid.  -t.'.  ; 
ChamherH  i-.  Howell,  11  Beav.  8;  IJeiit- 
ley  V.  Craven,  18  Beav.  70  ;  Moclurc  v. 


Ilipley,  2  Mac.  A  G.  274;  Blissett  «■. 
Daniel,  10  Ha.  r.:;S  ;  Cl.'s:;,'  e.  Edmond- 
son.  .s  D.  M.  it  Vf.  807;  (.'leinents  v. 
Hall.  2  D.  it  J.  17;i ;  Terens  e.  .lolinson, 
3  Sm.  <t  IJ.  11'.' ;  comiJ.  Knight  v.  Mnr- 
joribanks,  1 1  Beav.  322. 

•  See  Hccil  r.  Norris,  2  M.  A  C. 
3tU  ;  Khodes  v.  Bate,  L.  U.  1  Ch.  Aji. 
252. 

^  Tato  V.  ■Williamson,  L.  U.  2  Ch. 
App.  65.  See  Greeidaw  v.  Kinj;,  6 
Jur.  18;  Giddiii'/s  r.  {i'uUVwf^,  3  Uuss. 
211  ;  Waters  v.  IJ.tiley,  2  Y.  it  C.  C.  C. 
21'.»;  Tanner  v.  Hlwortliy,  1  iJeav.  487; 
Smith  V.  Kav,  7  H.  L.  7.'><>;  Coulson  r. 
Alli.-on.  2  D!  F.  it  J.  .'.21  ;  I'rideaux  r. 
Lonsdale,  1  D.  J.  it  .S.  433,  tupra,  p. 
152. 


*  FlnRK  r.  Mann,  2  Hiimner,  480;  Simmons  r.  Vulcan  Oil  Vo.  f.l  Penn. 
202:  Short  r.  Stev«'n»on,  ('.:{  IVnn.  It.'). 

The  rule  <lo(ii  not  apply  to  dealin^'H  that  are  not  within  the  scope  of 
the  partneruhip  bujjincjw.     AV heeler  c.  Sage,  1  Wall.  TjIW. 


FUAii)  riM:si-.Mi;i).  183 

of  o<|uity  to  take  advantage  of  that  situatiiui,  altlii»u;,'!i  tlio 
relation  of  solicitor  and  client,  or  ])rincii)al  and  a^^cnt,  be  not 
strictly  constifiilcij  befwccn  tlicin.  It  is  enon^dj  that  a  man 
be  merely  consulted  as  a  confidential  friend.^  It  is  ininiatc^rial 
that  no  definite  relation  may  exist  between  the  parties.^* 

The  principle  on  which  a  court  of  equity  acts  in  relievin;^' 
against  transactions  on  the  ground  of  inequality  of  footing 
between  the  parties,  is  not  confined  to  cases  where  a  fiduciary 
relation  can  be  shown  to  exist,  but  extends  to  all  the  varieties 
of  relations  in  which  dominion  may  be  exercised  by  one  man 
over  another,  and  applies  to  every  case  where  influence  is  ac- 
quired and  abused  or  •where  confidence  is  reposed  and  betrayed.' 
In  cases  where  a  fiduciary  relation  (hies  not  subsist  between  tho 
parties,  the  court  will  not,  as  it  does  where  a  fiduciary  relation 
subsists,  presume  confidence  put  and  influence  exerted :  the 
confidence  and  the  influence  must,  in  such  cases,  be  proved 
extrinsically,  but  when  they  are  proved  extrinsically,  the 
rules  of  equity  are  just  as  applicable  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.* 

'No  general  rule  can  be  laid  down  as  to  what  shall  constitute 
undue  influence.  The  question  is  one  which  must  in  each 
ease  depend  on  its  own  particular  circumstances.  There  is  no 
head  of  equity  more  ditficult  of  application  than  the  avoid- 
ance  of  a  transaction  on   the  ground  of  advantage  taken  of 

'  Tnylor  v.   Obee,   3  Pri.   83;    see  Lord   Kin2:sdoii\-n ;  "Wj-se  v.  Lambert, 

Dnrley  w.  Singleton,  Wififht.  25.  If,  Ir.  Cli.  37'J ;  Rhodes  v.  Bate,  L.  K.  1 

'  Jb.;  Butler  v.   Miller,  L.  11.   1   Ir.  Ch.  App.  252. 
Eq.  215.  *  7  il.  L.  779,  per  Lord  Kingsdown; 

*  Ilu^ienin  v.  Basley,  It  Vc?.  273,  see  Casborne  v.  Barsham,  2  iJeav.  7G; 

286;  Dent  v.  Bennett,  4  M.  it  C.  2t;0 ;  Boj-se   v.   Rus.sborou<jli,  3  Jur.    N.   S. 

Cooke  v.  Lamotte,  15  Bcav.  234;  Bill-  373;   Beanland  v.  Bradley,  2  Sni.  <k  G. 

ago  V.  Southee,  !•  11a.  534,  640;  Wil-  XVj;  Harrison  v.  Guest,  "o  D.  M.  «t  G. 

liams  V.  Bayley,  L.  H.  1  App.  Ca.  2u0;  424  ;  Rhodes  v.  Bate,  1  L.  R.  Ch.  Ap. 

Smith  V.  Kay,  7  H.  L.  750,  779,  per  252;  Lyon  t-.  Home,  16  W,  li.  824. 


•  McCormick  r.  Malin,  5  Blackf.  TjOO  ;  Wilson  r.  Watts,  9  Md.  356; 
Dismukcs  r.  Terry,  "Walk.  197. 


184 


I'KAl   I>    I'Kr.srMTD. 


distroRj;.'  Tlu'  case  present-^  ii.»  ditliculty  wlu-ri'  <lir('('t  ri'straint, 
duress,  or  opprespitm  cm  l>e  bhuwn.''  The  ditlifulty  ariscd 
when  tlie  court  lias  to  dftfrniinc  whether  the  advaiitaije  taken 
of  distress  amounts  to  oppress!**!!,'*  or  tlie  iiilluenee  exerted 
has  been  so  pressin«j;  as  to  be  undue  witliin  the  rule  of  e<puty.* 
In  a  case  wheix*  tlie  Imldei's  of  foim-d  bills  wni-ki!!«'  on  the 
fears  of  a  father  for  the  safety  of  his  son,  who  had  forced  them, 
but  without  any  distinct  threat  and  without  any  distinct  ])ro!n- 
ise  not  to  prosecute,  obtained  from  bim  a  security  for  the 
amount  of  the  bills,  tlie  transaction  was  set  aside.'  In  a  case 
however  wliere  a  debtor  who  was  under  arrest  bad  iriven  to  a 
creditor,  at  whose  suit  he  was  imprisoned,  a  warrant  of  at- 
torney to  confess  judijmcnt  for  the  whole  amount  claimed,  the 
court  held  that  the  aiTan^ement  having  been  entered  into  de- 
liberately, with  full  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  and  with 
professional  advice,  was  not  impeachable,  although  one  of  the 
debts  for  which  the  warrant  of  attorney  was  given  was  barred 


'  Rnmshottom  v.  Parker,  6  Madd.  (>. 

'  M'.-liolls  I'.  NicholLs,  1  Atk.  4n'j; 
Koy  I'.  Duke  of  Beaufonl,  2  Atk.  lyo; 
Thornhill  i\  Evans,  ib.  ;m);  Talli-yrand 
f.  I5ijulan::;er,  'A  Yes.  418;  LaTi)|ilii;;li  t'. 
Latnpluf;!!,  1  Ij'ick.  411;  GubhiiH  v. 
Cree.i,  '2  Sell,  it  Lff.  211  ;  UiuK-rliill  v. 
Ilarwood.  iD  Ve!<.  2i;i;   Pickett  r.  Loi;- 

(jan,  14  Vi's.  215;  IVel  v. ,  10  Vt-rf. 

157  ;  Middle-ton  v.  Middlt-ton,  1  J.  «t  W. 

yi. 

*  Hamsbottom  i-.  Parker,  6  Mndd.  P.. 

*  Middl.t<in  I'.  Siierhiinif.  4  V.  it  C. 
380;  IJovKo  I'.  liUssbi)rou;;li,  3  Jur.  N. 
S.  373;  UhodcH  .-.  ]{at<',  L.  U.  1  ("h.  Ap. 
2.'2.  'Ibe  rivil  law  alwavH  Hffs  aside  a 
contract  jirociirc-d  by  fi>rcf.  nr  frt.ui  a 
uiini  i.f  lilu  rty  ill  thu  coutractiny  jmrt}'. 


It  was  said  in  the  Pandects  that  tiio 
j)arty  must  be  intiinidateil  by  tlie  aj)- 
jiieliension  of  some  sirious  evil  of  u 
jiresent  or  pressinjj  nature,  and  sucli  as 
is  cai>ablc  of  making  an  im]ire!^siuu 
ujion  a  person  of  courace.  I'otliier, 
however,  tliinks  this  niTe  to)  strict, 
and  tiiat  re<^ard  (-iKiiild  be  had  to  tho 
a-j^i',  be.\,  and  cunditicm  of  the  party, 
and  that  a  fear  whieii  Wduid  not  bo 
deemed  suHieient  to  iiave  influence  on  a 
man  in  the  prime  of  life,  mi^^lit  be  sutli- 
cient  in  respect  of  a  woman,  or  a  man 
in  the  decline  of  life.  Obi.  p.  1,  c.  1, 
art.  :t.  jj.  2,  p.  25. 

'  Williams  r.  Payley,  L.  K.  1  App. 
Ca.  2ii();  .see  Nichi.Hs  v.  Meholls,  1 
Atk.  4uy ;  Scott  v.  Scott,  1 1  Ir.  Ltj.  74. 


♦  Butler  r.  Ilaskfll,  4  Dessuii.  051 ;  Kenny  r.  Udall,  5  Johns.  (  h.  4ni ; 
Rtcwurt  t.  Stewart,  7  J.  .1.  Mar«li.  IHH;  Lyon  r.  Tiiliuudjjc,  14  .lolins.  mil ; 
Driver  r.  Torfiine,  Ti  I'ort.  0;  Hoti^ih  r.  Hunt,  2  Ohio,  4:{r»;  ICsbain  r. 
I.aimir,  10  H.  Mon.  4:{;  C'mtrai  Hank  r.  Cojxiand,  IH  Md.  :!0.-) ;  Ihmt  r, 
]5n-S  2  Dev.  E<|.  l.'U2;  Davin  r.  Mor;,'nn,  1  I)Mnji.  20  ;  Tato  r,  AVliitncy,  Har- 
rinK'a  Cb.  145;  Kelwy  r.  Iloldiy.  10  Pet.  '*0'.». 


FIIATI)    I'lUSlMI'I).  185 

by  tlio  Stfttuto  of  Limitations.*  Tlio  court  is  bound  to  examine 
carefully  into  a  contrnct  entered  into  ■svitli  a  ]  aity  who  is  in 
fijaol,  and  to  see  that  no  undue  advanta^^e  lias  hcen  taken  (if  his 
position.  But  it  is  not  tnie,  as  a  i^encral  |.rinci|»lc,  that  a  man 
in  insolvent  circumstances  and  in  2)nbun  can  nut  >ell  hi.s  i»r(i|>- 
erty.^ 

In  cliariiiiii;  a  jury,  with  respect  to  what  sliall  constitute 
undue  inlhienee  in  the  jnakin^  of  a  will,  Mr.  Justice  AVilde 
said  as  follows,  in  a  very  late  case  : '  *  "  To  make  a  ^'ood  will  a 
man  must  be  a  free  agent,  but  all  influences  are  not  unlawful. 
Persuasion  appeals  to  the  affections,  or  ties  of  kindred,  to  a 
sentiment  of  gratitude  for  past  services  or  pity  for  future  desti- 
tution or  the  like.  These  are  all  legitimate  and  may  be  fairly 
pressed  on  a  testator.  On  the  other  hand,  pressure  of  what- 
ever character,  Avhether  acting  on  the  fears  or  the  hopes,  if  so 
exerted  as  to  ovei-jDower  the  volition  without  convincing  the 
judgment,  is  a  species  of  restraint  under  which  no  valid  will 
can  be  made.  Importunity  or  threats  such  as  the  testator  has 
not  the  courage  to  resist ;  moral  command  asserted  and  yielded 
for  the  sake  of  peace  and  <|uict,  or  of  escaping  from  distress  of 
mind  or  social  discomfort ;  these,  if  carried  to  a  degree  in 
which  the  free  play  of  the  testator's  judgment,  discretion,  or 
•wishes  is  overborne,  will  constitute  undue  influence,  though  no 
force  is  either  used  or  threatened.  In  a  word  a  testator  may 
be  led,  not  driven,  and  his  will  must  be  the  ofl:spring  of  his 
own  volition  and  not  that  of  another."* 

'  Richnrds  ?•.  Curlowis,  3  Eq.   Rep.  "  Brinkley  t».  Ilnnn,  1  Dru.  115;  se 

278;  see  llinton  t>.  Hinton,  2  Yes.  634;  Tarker  v.  Cl:irkc,  3  >  Beav.  fi4. 

Roy  t:  Duke  of  Ik-aiifort,  2  Atk.  11(3 ;  '  Hall  v.  II  ill,  18  L.  T.  N.  S.  IfiS;  37 

Knight  r.  Marjoribanks.  11  Heav.  322,  2  L.  J.  Ch.  21 ;  L.  R.  I'r.  A  ])iv.  4.s2. 

Mac.    A  G.    lu;  Scott  v.   Scott,  11  Ir.  *  See  Farreut  v.  Biauchlord,  1  D.J. 

Eq.    74;   comp.   Fulkner  v.  O'Brien,    2  «t  S.  121. 
Ba.  <fc  Be.  220;  Wilkinsou  v.  Stafford,  1 
Ves.  Jr.  43. 


*  Davis  r.  Calvert,  5  G  &  J.  269 ;  Gardiner  r.  Gardiner,  31  X.  Y.  lo5  ; 

13 


ISC  rnAri)  riir.srMED. 

Mere  inadequacy  of  consideration  or  inequality  in  a  barj^ain 
is  iu»t  a  i:ri>uiid  to  set  aside  a  transaeti»>n,  it"  tlu*  ]t:irties  were 
on  e<iual  terms  and  in  a  situation  to  jndi^e  tor  themselves,  and 
]>ert"orme<l   the  act  wittingly  and  willini^ly.'*      !Mero   inade- 

'  Gnrtsido  v.  Ishcrwood,  I  Hro.  C.  C.  Mndd.  409 ;   Wowl  i>.   Abrey,  8   Mndd 

05'.»;  (irirtith   r.  Spriitlcy.    1    Cox.  3S3;  417;    MiTi-didi    r.    Snnnder.H,    '2    Ih.w. 

Collier  v.   Brown.   if>  4J8;    Fox  r.  Mii-  MJ  ;  Curz  >n  r.  Il.hvortliv.  3  H.  L.  712; 

crptli,  2  Cox,  :i22  ,  Murray  r.  rainier.  2  llarrisMn  t'.  Guest,  0  D.  M.  iL  U.  434,  b 

Sell,  ik  Ix-f.  488;   Copis  r.  Middlcton,  2  11.  L.  4sl, 


TyUr  r.  Gardiner,  35  N.  Y.  559  ;  Turner  v.  Cheesomnn,  2  McCarter,  243; 
Moore  r  Blauvelt,  2  McCarter,  307  ;  Hall  r.  Hall,  3S  Ala.  131. 

»  Butler  r.  Haskell,  4  Dessau.  G51;  Eyre  r.  Potter.  15  How.  42  ;  Barei- 
beau  r.  Brant,  17  How.  43;  Farnam  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212;  Steele  r. 
Worthinirt«)n,  2  Ohio,  352  ;  "Wintermuto  r.  Snyder,  2  Green's  Ch.  489; 
Bedel  r.  Loomis.  11  N.  H.  9;  Cubbins  v.  Markwood,  13  Gratt.  495  ;  Erwin 
r.  Parham.  12  How.  197. 

It  lias  l)een  left,  perlmps,  wisely,  to  the  exppriencc  of  the  courts  of 
justice  to  apply  the  jjreat  principles  of  equity  to  each  case  according  to 
its  particular  circumstances,  and  thus  gradually  to  foiin  a  practical  sys- 
tem of  i)ure  justice.  And  the  courts  have  never  decided,  as  a  Imiad  prin- 
ciple, that  mere  inadequacy  of  price,  unconnected  with  direct  fraud  or  im- 
position, or  concealment,  or  advantage  taken  of  extreme  weakness  or 
great  necessity,  should  be  a  distinct  and  inilependent  ground  for  vitiating 
contracts.  But  the  courts  have  said  that  the  inadequacy  may  be  so  gross 
as  to  furnish  strong  and  even  conclusive  presumption  of  fraud,  and  that 
is  the  way  the  grossness  or  inadequacy  may  avoid  the  sale.  Wherever  the 
courts  j)erceive  that  a  sale  of  property  has  been  nuule  at  a  gro.>isly  inade- 
quate price  such  as  would  shock  a  correct  mind,  this  ina<l(quacy  furnishes 
a  strong  and  in  general  a  conclusive  jiresumption,  though  there  is  no 
direct  proof  of  fraud,  that  an  undue  advantage  has  been  taken  of  the 
ignorance,  the  weakness,  or  the  necessity  and  distress  of  tiie  vendor;  and 
this  injposes  upon  the  purchaser  the  necessity  to  remove  this  violent  pre- 
sumption by  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  fainiess  of  his  conduct.  The  re- 
lief is  cxtentleil  not  oidy  to  young  heirs  selling  their  expectancies,  itut  to 
oil  who  are  weak,  or  necessitous,  or  not  '  perfectly  conusant  of  their 
rights,  whether  selling  expectancies  or  absolute  estates,  more  {'specially 
where  tlic  purchaser  is  very  intelligent  and  acute,  and  avails  himself  of 
his  superiority  in  an  unniiMinablo  manner.  Butler  r.  Haskell,  4  Dessau. 
051. 

When  the  smallness  of  tin-  jtriee  is  due  to  tlu;   fault  of  the  vendor,  the 
3u\c  U  valid.     Forde  r.  Herron,  l  .Munf.  31(1. 

The  inadequacy  of  the  price  given  at  the  sale  of  land  for  unpaid  taxetj 


FRAUD  PRESUMED. 


]S< 


quaoy  of  coniiitloration  is  not  a  <,'r(»un(l  lor  refiisin;^  gpecific  pt-r- 
fonnaiice  of  an  uiiexeeiited  contract,  and  Htill  lu8.s  can  it  l)o 
gronnd  for  roscindini;  an  executed  contract.'  But  inadequacy 
of  consideratinii,  if  it  !»(•  ofso  fjross  a  iiatiin-  as  to  amount  in  it- 
self to  conclusive  and  decisive  evidence  of  fraud,  is  a  ground 
for  cancclini^  a  transaction.  In  such  cases  the  relief  is  granted 
not  on  the  ground  of  the  inadequacy  of  consideration,  but  on 
the  ground  of  fraud  as  evidenced  thereby.''*     In  determining 


•Collier  v.  Rrown,  1  Cox,  428;  Coles 
f.  Trccotliick,  it  Vcs.  24t". ,  Callus lian  c. 
Calltt-hnn.  K  CI.  .t  Fin.  -lol ;  ]5,,\V(.r  v. 
Cooper,  2  Hn.  408;  BoruU  i'.  Dan:),  //>. 
450,  per  'Wiu'ram,  V.-C. ;  Abbott  v. 
Sworder,  4  Dcg.  &  Sin.  450 ;  comp. 
Bnrnartiiston  v.  Linijood,  2  Atk.  i:j4; 
Falckc  V.  Gray,  4  Drew.  (".51.  There 
was  till  very  recently  a  well  recojjnized 
distinetion  Ix-tween  sales  of  estates  ia 
possession  and  estates  in  reversion. 
rhe  sale  of  an  estate  in  reversion,  if 
effected  by  private  contract,  was  liable 
to  be  set  aside  at  any  time  afterwards 
for  mere  inadequacy  of  consideration, 
and  the  onus  proliandi  did  not,  as  in 
ordinary  cases,  rest  with  the  plaintiff 
seekini;  to  innieacii  tlie  rule,  but  wi;h 
the  defendant  uphoKlino^  it.  Davis  v. 
Duke  of  Marlbor<ju;,'h,  2  Sw.  151  ;  Gow- 
land  V.  ])e  Faria,  17  Ves.  20;  Earl  of 
Aldborough  v.  Trye,  7  CI.  <fe  Fin.  450; 
Edwards  v.  Burt,  2  D.  M.  A  f  J.  55 ; 
Lromley  v.  Smith,  20  Bea'v.  644 ;  Talbot 


»'.  .«;tanif()rth,  I  .1.  ,fc  li.  4S.|.  But  it 
has  been  enacted  by  31  Vict.  c.  4  that 
no  i)ur(h:ise  made  honn ji'lr,  and  with- 
out fraud  or  unfair  dealiiii;,  of  nnv 
reversionary  interest  in  real  or  personal 
estate,  shall  be  hereafter  opened  or  set 
aside  merely  on  the  ground  of  under- 
value. 

'Gwj-nne  r.  Heaton,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  9; 
Gartside  v.  Isherwood,  ib.  559;  lleath- 
coate  V.  Taii^non,  2  Bro.  C.  (-.  17:!; 
Evans  i'.  Llewellin,  1  Co.\,  .S:5  i ;  Gibsiii 
V.  Jeyes,  0  Ves.  200,  273  ;  Underbill  c. 
Ilorwood,  10  Ves.  209,  219;  Mors.'  -. 
Itoyal,  12  Ves.  373  ;  "Wood  - .  Abrey,  :; 
Ma'dd.  417;  l^lakeney  i-.  Ba2:?ott,  I 
Dow  <t  CI.  405;  Stil'hvell  v.  W.lkins, 
Jac.  2K2;  Burell  v.  Dann,  2  Ila.  44'», 
450;  Itice  '•.  Gordon,  II  Beav.  205; 
Coekell  <•.  Taylor.  15  Beav.  lo3,  115; 
Fakke  v.  Gray, 4  Drew.  051  ;  ."^unimers 
V.  Griffiths,  35  Beav.  27;  Butler  v. 
Miller,  L.  li.  1  Ir.  Eq.  210. 


tlicrcon  floes  not  constitute  a  valid  objection  to  the  sale.  Slater  r.  Mas- 
well,  6  Wall.  268. 

*  Butler  r.  Haskell,  4  Dessau.  651  ;  McCormick  r.  Malin,  5  Blackf  509; 
Eyre  v.  Potter,  15  IIow.  43;  Veazie  r.  Williams,  8  IIow.  i:J4:  Wrii,'ht  r. 
Stannard,  2  Brock.  313  ;  Green  r.  Tlioni])son,  2  Ircd.  Eq.  365  ;  Xownian  v. 
Meek,  1  Freeman's  Cb.  441  ;  White  v.  Flora,  2  Overton,  426;  Ilarilcman  v. 
Berge,  10  Ycrg.  202  ;  Knohb  r.  Lindsay,  5  Ohio,  468  ;  Osgood  r.  Franklin, 
2  Johns.  Ch.  1 ;  Stubblcfield  r.  Patterson,  3  Iley.  128  ;  Jouzin  r.  Toulmin, 
9  Ala.  662 ;  Baker  v.  Howell,  4  Johns.  Ch.  118. 

The  qualitication  to  the  rule  implies  necessarily  the  affirmation  that  if 
the  inadequacy  be  of  a  nature  so  gross  as  to  shock  the  conscience,  it  will 
amount  to  proof  of  fraud.  Byers  r.  Surget.  19  How.  303;  Wright  r.  Wil- 
son, 2  Yerg.  294  ;  Barnett  v.  Spratt,  4  Ired.  Eq.  171 ;  Deaderick  r.  Watkius, 


ISJ^  iKAiii  i'i;r>rMi:r». 

whether  the  consideration  is  or  is  not  atU'c^nate,  it  must  always 
be  renuMiihered  that  thi-re  are  lancy  prices  n<»t  reirulati-il  by 
intrinsic  vahie.^ 

lU"  the  civil  law  a  sale  for  one  lialf  the  value  nii^ht  he  (?ct 
aside  lor  inadeijuacv,'     It'  the  j»riie  i;iven  was  leas  than  une- 

'  Abbott  t',  Sworder.  4   Dcg.  it   Sm.  "  N<.tt   r.  Hill.  2  C'h.  Ca.    1*20;  /kt 

45ft.  Lord  Nottiiii^liiuii ;   How  r.  '\Velili>n,  2 


8  liumph.  020;  Morris  v.  Philibcr,  80  Mo.  145;  Ilurdcmau  r.  Burgp,  10 
YcriJ.  202. 

In:uU'(|Uacy  of  price  witliin  itself,  anil  disjconncctcd  from  all  otlicr 
facts,  can  not  he  a  frrouml  for  settinj^  aside  a  contract,  or  alfordini;  relief 
ajjainst  it.  "What  this  somethiiif;  liesiiles  iiia(Iet|uaey  .should  be.  i)erli:ips 
no  eourt  ought  to  sjiy,  lest  the  euuning  and  the  wary,  by  employing  other 
means  than  those  named,  should  e.scapc  with  their  fraixUilent  gains.  It 
ought,  however,  in  connection  with  the  inadequacy  of  consideration,  to 
induce  the  Ix'lief  that  there  has  been  cither  a  .suppression  of  the  truth,  the 
suggestion  of  falsehood,  j-.buse  of  confidence,  or  violation  of  duty  arising 
out  of  gome  fiduciary  relation  between  the  jjarties,  the  exercise  of  undue 
iniluence,  or  the  taking  of  an  unjust  or  inequitable  advantage  of  one 
whose  peculiar  situation  at  the  time  would  be  calculated  to  render  him  an 
easy  prey  for  the  cunning  and  artful.  But  if  no  one  of  these  appear,  or  if 
no  fact  is  proved,  that  will  lead  the  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  the  parly 
against  whom  relief  is  sought  has  sui)pressed  some  faet  that  he  ought  to 
have  disclosed,  or  that  he  has  suggested  some  false-hood,  or  abused  in 
some  manner  the  confidence  reposed  in  him,  or  that  some  lidueiary  rela- 
tion existed  l)etween  the  jjarties,  or  that  the  party  complaining  was  under 
Lis  influence,  or  at  the  time  of  the  transaction  was  in  a  c(mditi(m,  fn)m 
any  cau.se,  an  easy  victim  to  the  unconseieutious,  then  relief  can  not  be 
ufi^urdi-d.     Judge-  r.  W  ilk  ins,  1!»  Ala.  705. 

Whenever  equity  interferes  with  a  contract,  or  refuses  its  aid  to  carry 
it  into  execution  for  inadefpiaey  of  con>idiralion,  it  is  on  the  ground  of 
fraud  which  must  either  be  clearly  pn)ved,  or  result  irresistibly  at  the 
first  view,  and  without  calculation  from  the  grossncss  of  the  dispr.rity. 
Steele  r.  Worthington,  2  Ohio,  Ur)2;  Ilar.leman  r.  Hurgo,  10  Yerg.  202. 

An  entire  lailure  of  consideration  by  the  receipt  of  what  is  a  mere 
bubble,  may  Ik;  the  ground  for  rescinding  u  contract.  Warner  r.  Daniels, 
1  Wood,  ii  Min.  DO. 

The  fact  that  the  Kale  wiw  made  under  judicial  process  weakens,  but 
docs  not  nl)8olutely  remove  the  ])re.sumpti()n  of  fraud  arising  from  great 
inadequacy.     Bycrs  r,  Surget.  10  How.  !30:j ;  h.  c.  1  Ilemj).  715. 

Inadequacy  of  price  is  no  ground  for  setting  aside  a  sale  at  auction. 
Kcwman  c.  Meek,  1  rp-'iu.  Ch.  441  ;  llaiuLij  c.  Co.dcs,  1  Dcv.  Eq.  420. 


ntAlI)    PKHSIMI-.l).  189 

lialf  the  value,  the  iiiciiualify  was  (IcciikmI  l.y  tlio  civil  law 
l<rst<)  and  rrlifl'  wa>  allonlcd.  Tlicrc  i-  liMwcvcr  ii<.  nih-  in 
our  ('Wii  law  as  to  what  ilitlbrenco  between  the  real  value  ot* 
property  and  the  consideration  i^dvcn  constitnteft  inadecpiacy  of 
price.  This  the  judi^^e  must  decide.^*  In  most  caseH,  liowever, 
perhaps  a  sale  at  half  jtricc  might  he  sutlicicnl,  to  induce  the 
court  to  set  aside  a  transaction,  if  there  is  no  i::round  ior  >\\'j:- 
gesting  that  bounty  was  intended.^  AVhen  bounty  is  intende<J, 
there  is  no  room  for  the  inference  of  fraud  from  the  inadequacy 
of  the  price;  love  and  aifection  will  alone  support  the  convey- 
ance without  any  pecuniary  consideration,  and  will  e«jually 
suiii).)rt  it  wliere  there  is  a  pecuniary  consideration  wholly 
inade«piate  to  the  value  of  the  property.^ 

The  f\ict  that  a  transaction  may  have  been  improvident  or 
precipitate,  or  may  have  been  entered  into  without  inde- 
pendent professional  advice,  is  as  immaterial  as  mere  inade- 
quacy of  consideration,  if  the  i^irties  were  on  equal  terms  and 
in  a  situation  to  act  and  judge  for  themselves,  and  fully  under- 
stood the  nature  of  the  transaction,  and  no  evidence  can  be 
adduced  of  the  exercise  of  undue  influence  or  oppression.*  f 
But  inadequacy  of  consideration  or  the  absence  of  independent 
professional  advice  becomes  a  most  material  circumstance 
where  one  of  the  parties  to  a  transaction  is  from  age,  igno- 
rance, distress,  incapacity,  weakness  of  mind,  body,  or  dis- 

Ves.  616;  Day  »-.  Newiinn.  2  Cox.  80;  *  Wlialley  /■.  Wlialley.  1  Mor.  440,. 

Burrowos  v.  Lock,  10  Vcs.  474,  per  Sir  *  Mertilith  >:  Saumlcrs,  2  I)c,w.  514  ; 

W  Grant  Blackit- ?■.  Clark,  1')  IJeav.  6'.i.'> ;    Harri- 

'  See  Nott  ,'.  Hill,  2  Cli.  Ca.    120;  son  v.  Guest,  0  I).  M.  ^  G.  434.  8  II.  L. 

Butler  .'.  MilliT.   L.   K.  1  Ir.  Eq.  r.i4;  4S1 ;  Denton  ,<.  Douner,  23  Beav.  2'.']; 

but  see  2  Madd.  421  n.  Tokcr  v.  Toker,  31  Beav.  629,  32  L  J. 

"  Butler  V.  Miller,    L.  K.  1    Ir.   Eq.  Ch.  322. 
194. 


♦  Butler  V.  Haskell,  4  Dessau.  051 ;  Wild  r.  Rees  48  111.  428;  "Wcster- 
vclt  V.  Matheson,  1  Iloff.  Cb.  37. 

t  Green  r.  Thompson,  2  Ircd.  Eq.  oGo ;  Dunn  c.  Cliiiuil»ers,  4  B:ul>.  37C; 
Jouzin  r.  Toulmin,  U  Ala.  CG2. 


VM 


rii.M  i>  ri;i:srMi:i). 


position,  or  rroiii  liunilili'  position  or  ollici*  clrcunistanccs, 
unable  to  protrct  liiin>c'lt.  In  nil  sufli  casis,  whatever  he  tho 
nature  of  the  transaction,  the  o/nt.'<  of  proof  re^ts  on  the  party 
wlio  seeks  to  uj^hohl  it  to  sliow  tliat  the  otlicr  ])orfornie(l  tlio 
act  or  entered  into  the  transaction  vohiutarily  and  delib- 
erately, knowing  its  nature  and  iH'cct,  and  tliat  his  consent 
to  perforin  the  act  or  become  a  party  to  tlic  transaction  was 
not  obtained  by  reason  of  any  undue  advantaije  taken  of  his 
position  or  of  any  undue  influence  exerted  over  him.'*  Tho 
mere  fact,  however,  that  one  of  the  parties  may  be  an  illiterate 
person  or  a  man  of  advanced  age,  or  may  be  in  bad  health,  or 
in  distress,  or  j)ecnniarv  embarrassment,  will  not  vitiate  a  trans- 
action, even  although  it  rnay  have  been  founded  on  an  inadequate 
consideration,  and  no  independent  advice  may  have  been  had, 
if  it  api>ear  on  the  face  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  fully  com- 
petent to  form  an  independent  judgment  in  the  matter,  and 
became  a  party  to  the  transaction  deliberately  and  advisedly, 
knowing  its  nature  and  etiect.     The  onus  rests  on  the  party 


'  Ardglosso  V.  Jrn-=c)inmp,  1  Vorn. 
236;  Clarkson  v.  Ilanwuy.  2  P.  Wins. 
203;  Proof  r.  llines,  Forrest,  111;  How 
f.  Weldon,  2  Ves.  fiKi;  Gartsiile  v. 
l-herwKoJ,  1  Hro.  C  C.  .'>.')'.•;  Evaii.s  c 
Lli'Wi-llin,  1  ("ox,  '.V.i'.i;  Murray  '•  Palin- 
••r,  2  Sell,  ik  Lff.  4S»);  Morst'  r.  Kovul, 
12  Ves.  873;  Pickett  v.  Lo^jpnn,' U 
Vea.  231  ;  Falkner  r.  O'lirieiii  2  15a.  A 
Bo.  22<»;  Griftitli  r.  Uobbins,  ;{  Ma<l(l. 
I'M;  \V(M>il  ,■.  Abrev,  //<.  417;  Willaii  •: 
Willan.  2  Dow.  271';  Collins  i<.  liar.',  2 
IJli:,'li'!4  N.  S.lnr. ;  .M'Di.irmiil  >■.  M'l)iar 
iiiid.  3  l{li:^l!'«  .N.  S.  :s71;  Williains  /■. 
tiiiiilb,  7  L.  J.  Cli.  12'J;  liowcix  v.  Kir- 


wan,  LI.  it  O.  47 ;  Dent  i-*Bennctt,  4  M. 
ifc  C.  273;  Aliearnc  t*.  Hoi;an,  l»ru.  31U; 
CJarvcy  r.  M'Minn,  9  Ir.  tlq.  520;  Gib- 
son V.  Uussell.  2  Y.  <fe  C.  C.  C.  104; 
yturi^e  I'.  Stur;c<',  1'-  Heav.  244  ;  Cockeil 
I'.  Taylor,  1.')  JJeav.  lir»;  (.'ooke  v.  La- 
iMolte,  ('/'.  234  ;  Lougniutu  r.  Leil;;er,  2 
(iiir.  ir)7;  Grosvenor  v.  Sherratt,  23 
Hoav.  li.'.'.t;  Smith  c.  Kay,  7  II.  L.  IM; 
I'litliaux  I'.  LoiiJitlale,  1  D.  J.  A- (J.  433; 
Simiiiier.'i  »'.  Griflitli,  3.'i  Heiv.  27; 
Klioiles  v.  Hate.  L.  It.  1  Cli.  Apj).  2^2; 
Tate  r,  William.ioM,  L.  K.  2  Oh.  App. 
05. 


♦  Ncely  r.  Andcnwn,  2  Strobh.  Eq.  202;  MiuMo.x  r.  Siinmons,  31  Gca 
r»12;  Wormark  r.  Hoj:tp*,  U  Geo.  CO;  Minn  r.  IJittirly,  21  Vt.  ;J2(J ; 
IIoImcH  r.  Frc^h,  St  Mo.  201  ;  (tcor};c  r.  Hicli;ir(ls<in,  Gilincr,  2;ji»;  Iluwlry 
r.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  717;  HjiII  r.  I'crkiii'*,  ;J  Wci.il.  (i2<i;  Howanl  r.  Kdvill, 
17  Vt.  ft;  jlolrjcn  r.  Cruwlurd,  1  Aik.  yi»"i;  Milviiiiu'v  r.  rinckard,  2 
Lcit?h,  1  lU  :  T'xl.l  c.  (Jrovo,  33  31!.  lai. 


FRAUD  ri;i:srMi:i).  TJl 

impcacliiiii,^  tlic  ti-aiisaclinu  lo  sliow  that  (•(»ei-cir)ii  was  used  or 
iiiidiM;  iuliiiciicc  was  cxcrcMHcd.'  Tlicrc  can  Ik;  ik*  title  t<j 
relit't'on  tlie  ground  of  advantage  takt'ii  of  distress  wlieru  the 
advantage  or  disadvaDtaije  of  the  transaction  is  to  be  the 
result  of  I'litiire  contingencies,  and  is  not  within  the  view  of 
the  parties  at  the  time.*" 

A  mere  lalse  statement  of  tlie  eonsidei'alion  does  not  oi' 
itself  necessarily  vitiate  a  tleed,'^  but  there  may  bo  cases  wliere 
a  false  statement  of  the  consideration  may  of  itself  destroy  tlic 
whole  transaction.*  Tlie  i^eneral  rule  is  that,  where  no  eon- 
sideratiiui  is  expressed  in  a  deed,  a  jiarty  may  aver  and  prove 
consideration  in  siijiport  of  it,  and,  where  a  consideration  is 
expressed,  a  man  may  still  aver  other  considerations  not  incon- 
sistent tlierewith.*  Ayiiere,  however,  the  consideration  ex- 
pressed in  a  deed  is  impeadied  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  the 
])arty  cLaiming  nnder  the  deed  cannot  aver  in  its  support  con- 
siderations dilferent  from  that  expressed.®  If  the  transaction 
on  which  a  deed  purports  to  be  founded  and  the  consideration 
for  wliich  it  was  executed,  appear  to  be  untruly  stated,  the 
instrument  may,  if  the  nntruth  would  operate  fraudulently, 
lose  all  its  binding  quality  in  eijuity  even  though  it  be  con- 
clusive at  law,'  If  a  deed  states  on  its  face  a  pecuniary 
consideration,  a  party  cannot,  if  it  be  impeached,  set  up  con- 

•  Lewis   V.   Pead.    1    Yes.    Jr.    19;  '  Bowcn  r.  Kirwan,  LI.  »t.  G.  47. 

Lcvm  V.  Homo,  10  W.  R.  82 1;  M'Xcill  *  lb.     li]>hi<xUm  v.  l;ull.-n,  2  Dr.  & 

V.  ratiill,  2  Bli^rh,  22S  ;  I'latt  r.  Karker,  War.  181;  Gibsou  v.  ILussclI,  2  Y.  it  C. 

1  Sim.   1;   liuiiter  v.  Atkins,  a  M.  it  K.  C.  C.  1(>4. 

l\:i;  Purdie  v.  Millctt,  Taiiil.  ;n  ;  liicli-  "  llartopp  v.  Ilartojip,  17  Ves.  192; 

arils  V.  Cuilowis,  3  Yli[.  Kt'ii.  278;  Cur-  Cliflford  >:  'lurifU,  1  Y.  «V:  C.  C.  C.  138. 

zon  c.  Bi-lwurtliy,  3  II.  L.  712  ;  Il.iiri-  alVd.  14  L.  .1.  Cli.  39;  rsi.xon  v.  llnmil- 

80U  I'.  Guest,  0  i).  M.  it  G.  431,  8  H.  L.  ton,  2  Dr.  tfc  Wal.  387,  and  cases  cit.  2 

481 ;  sec  Ilovcnden  c  Lord  Aiiiier*ley,  2  P.  Wms.  2t)4. 

Scb.  <fe  Lef.  607,  039;   Price  v.  Price.  I  *  Clarkson   v.   Ilanwav.  2  P.  Wms. 

D.  M.  <fe  G.  308;   but  see  Cooke  v.  La-  203;  Brid^'inan   v.  (Jrccn,  2  Ves.  027; 

mottc,  15  Bcav.  234.    Comp.  Murray  v.  Watt  /•.  Grove.  2  Scb.  A  Lef.  501 ;  U  il- 

Palmer,  2  Scb.  «fc  Lef.  48G.  Ian  v.  Willaii,  2  Dow.  274. 

'  Ramsbottom  v.  Parker,  6  Madd.  6.  '  Watt  v.  Grove,  2  Scii.  it  Lef  604. 


•  Farnam  r.  P>rooks,  9  Pick.  'Jli  ;  AVhitc  v.  Flora,  2  Ovtrtoii,  426. 


192  rii.M  1)  ru!. SI  Mi:i). 

piilcmtions  of  MikkI  or  natural  lovo  ami  alVi'ctioii.'  Where, 
howovor,  tlic  roiitals  stated  a  ]»c'ruiiiary  coiisidcTatioii  as  the 
louiidatidii  of  a  (U't'tl,  aiul,  in  the  (»|i(.'rativc'  i»art,  love  and 
aH'eetion  wire  intnxlueed  as  bein<;  partly  the  consideration  on 
whieh  the  Avvi\  was  I'ouiidcd,  the  cinirt  would  net,  iVoiii  thitj 
eircunistanee  alone,  presume  Irautl.^ 

In  dealinj::s  between  parties,  one  of  whom  is  subject  to  the 
inlluence  of  the  other,  there  must  be  U])on  the  face  of  the  deed 
itself  a  fair  and  correet  statement  of  the  tran^actiun.  If  the 
statement  as  to  the  consideration  is  not  true,  the  transaction 
cannot  be  sujiported.  A  consideration  ])artly  of  the  consitlera- 
tion  stated  in  the  deetl  and  jtartly  of  something  else,  is  not 
consistent  with  the  consideration  stated  on  the  face  of  the 
deed.  It  is  not  open  to  the  i»arty  who  seeks  to  uphold  it  to 
jrive  sucli  evidence  to  sustain  the  deeil.^ 

The  statement  of  consideration  Mhere  there  was  in  fact 
none,  or  the  untrue  statement  of  the  consideration  or  other 
circumstances  of  a  suspicious  nature,  nuiy  be  sullicient  to  shitl 
the  burthen  of  proof  from  the  i)arty  impeaching  a  deed  u^kju 
the  party  upholding  it.^ 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  relieving  against  transac- 
tions on  the  ground  of  undue  influence  has  been  exercised  as 
between  a  medical  man  and  a  patient ;°  as  between  the  kee])er 
of  a  lunatic  asylum  an<l  a  patient  under  his  care;"  as  between 
a  minister  of  religion  and  a  person  under  his  si)iritual  inlhi- 


'  Cln'-k'son  v.   Iliunviiv,  2  P.   Wins.  rison  v.  Guest,  G  1).  M.  ik  (}.  431,  8  II. 

203;  Willuii  r.  Williiii,  J  Dow.  2S2.  L.  4H1. 

*  niriur  I'.  <;<>tf.  4   IJro.  P.  0.  230;  »  Hent  v.  Bonnett.  4  M.  A  C.  2fl9; 
Whallcy  »'.  Whiill<y,  :i  Hliirli,  13.  Atu'iinio  v.  llo^nn.  Dm.  310;  (Tib-ion  r. 

»  AricnriK-  I.  ll<i:ran.  Dm.  310;  Uj».  UuHwell,  2  Y.  A  V.  (".  f.  Inj;  Pc.a<«)ck  r. 

].inL'1'<ii   r.  Uullcn.  2  l»r.  A:  War.  1S4;  K.-niot.  H  L.  T.  2y2;   Allen   v.   Davis,  4 

I  lillor.!   V.    Turnlj,    1    Y.    ct   ('.   {".    C.  Do;;,  it  Sni.  133;   llilin-i-  i-.  Soutiioe,  U 

13b;  GibM)D  v.  UuitwU,  2  Y.  tt  C.  C,  C.  lia.  510.     See   Pnitl  r.  i'lirker,  4  Kuhs. 

104.  r>i»7;    l'i)|)liain    v.   Krxokc,    .'>    Uu.ti.  tt; 

*  W'ntt  r.  fJroVf,  2  Srh.  A  I>-f.  4'.»2.  Blarkic  r.  Clurke,  1.')  Ikav.  :,'X> ;  l-arler 
r.02;  (;riftithH  v.  Uol.hinn.  3  Mo<l(l.  I'.tl ;  v.  Laiw.  2Vi  L.  T.  2. 

(Jibm.n  I.  UnsH.il.  2  Y.  &  C.  V.  <".  HM;  •  Wriglil  v.  ProUil,  13  Yea.  186. 

Aliearoo  v.  I  logon,  Dm.  3lo.    See  liar- 


rKAii)  I'KDsi  :mi:i). 


V.y.l 


dice;*  as  l)ct\vcoii    a  spiritualist   iiiciliuin    ami   an   old   laily;^ 
as    Ijt'twt'i'M    a    vi'iiiiLC    niaii    in   tlii'   aiiiiv,  just  eomc  of  a<^e, 
and  liis  sujicrior  ((lliccr  ;^  as  between  husbaml  and  wife;*  as 
lietwceii  a  man  and  a  lady  to  wlioiii  he  was  about  to  be  mar- 
ried;' as   between  a  man  and  a  woman   with    whom  he  was 
living;"   as   between    brotlicr   and   sister;'    as    ;)etween    two 
brothers ;  ^  as  between  an  (.'Idcr  ami  a  youiiL^a-r  brother  just  come 
of  age;®    as  between  two  sisters;'"  as  between  an  uncle  and 
liis  nephew,"  who  was  deaf  and  dundj;'^  as  between  an  uncle, 
M'ho  was   in  such  a  state  of  bodily  and  mental  imbecility  as 
rendered  him  incapable  of  transacting  business  requiring  de- 
liberation and  reflection,  and  a  nephew  ;^^  as  between  nephew 
and  aunt,"  or  aunt  and  niece;  '^  as  between  a  young  man  just 
come  of  age  and  a  man  who  had  acquired  an  influence  over 
him  during  his  minority;^"  as  between  a  young  man  of  intem- 
perate habits  and  a  person  with  w]i nn   he  was  living;"   as 
between  an  nnniarrle  1    woman    and   lier   brother-in-law;'^   as 
between  an  old  lady  and  a  woman  living  with  her  in  the 


'  Norton  i-.  Kelly,  2  Eden,  2Rr, ; 
Hugueiiin  >:  Unsli-y,  14  Vcs.  '273;  Mid- 
dletoQ  V.  SIum'  urne,  4  Y.  ifc  C.  So8; 
Whyte  V.  McaJe,  2  Ir.  Kq.  420;  Nut- 
tidge  t'.  Priiiee,  2  Gill".  21o.  Comp. 
Kirwan  v.  I  iillen,  4  Ir.  (  li.  322;  re 
Metcalfe,  2  1).  J.  <fc  S.  122.  «ee  also 
Tliompson  c.  Ilefternan,  4  Dr.  <fe  War. 
2SC. 

''  Lvon  V.  Home,  16  W.  R.  821. 

'  Lloyil  V.  Clarke.  «  Ei-av.  3<  i9. 

*  Lambert  i'.  Lambert,  2  Lro.  P.  C. 

18 ;  Peel  1'. ,  10  Yes.  157;    Price  i'. 

I'rice,  1  1).  M.  &  G.  3(>8 ;  Boyse  v. 
Iviissborouirb,  3  Jur.  373 ;  Proctor  v. 
Robinson,  3.'>  Bcav.  335.  See  Xedby  r. 
Nedbv,  5  Deg.  ik  S.  377  ;  Coulsoa  v.  Al- 
lison,"2  D.  F.  A  J.  521. 

*  Page  I'.  Ilorne,  1 1  Beav.  227,  235 
Cobbctt  I'.  Brock,  20  Beav.  525. 

'Coulson  f.  Allison,  2  D.  F.  it  J. 
r>21.  See  Fanner  r.  Farmer,  1  II.  L. 
724 ;  Garvey  i'.  M'ilinu,  it  Ir.  Eq.  520. 

'  Sharp  V.  Leach,  31  Beav.  4'Jl. 


Sturge  t'.  Sturge,  12  Beav.  229, 
Scrcomc   v.    Saunders,    34  Beav. 


382. 


'"  Harvey  v.  Mount,  8  Beav.  439. 

"  Tato  V.  Williamson,  L.  R.  2  Ch. 
App.  55. 

"  Ferrcs  v.  Ferres,  2  Eq.  Ca.  Ab. 
605.  Comp.  F'armer  v.  Farmer,  1  H. 
L.  724;  Yickers  v.  Bdl,  9  L.  T.  N.  S. 
600. 

"  Willan  V.  "Willan,  2  D..w.  274. 

"  Grifliths  v.  Robbing,  3  Madd.  101 ; 
Cooke  V.  Lamotte,  15  Bcav.  241.  See 
Pratt  V.  Barker,  1  Sim.  1,  4  L.  J.  Cli. 
149;  Wliallev  v.  Wiiallev,  3  Bligli,  1  ; 
T(.ker  v.  Toker,  31  Beav'  629,  32  L.  J. 
Ch.  322. 

"  Anderson  v.  Ellsworth,  3  Gift  154. 

'"  Grosvenor  v.  Sherratt,  28  Beav. 
601;  Smith  i:  Kay,  7  H.  L.  750.  See 
Aylwnrd  i-.  Kearney,  2  B.  .t  B.  40.8. 

"  Terry  r.  Wacher,  15  Sim.  447. 

'■"  Rhodes  v.  Bate,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  Ap. 
252. 


191 


ru.M  i>  ruKsiMr.D. 


ca]>acity  of  n  companion  or  domestic;  ^  as  between  a  cliiUl  niul 
an  imlKH-ilc  paivnt ;'  and  in  otlicr  auses.' 

The  prini'iple  npon  wliidi  the  court  sets  a.-^ido  traiu<aetions 
on  tlie  gnnind  ot  undue  inlhieneo  only  apjilies  to  cases  wliere 
gome  hiwf'ul  rebition  has  been  constituted  between  the  par- 
tics.*  Where,  accordini^ly,  a  woman,  wliile  livinj;^  in  adultery 
with  a  married  man,  assii^ned  certain  proi)crty  to  secure  a 
debt  which  lie  owed,  the  court  would  not,  from  the  mere 
existence  of  the  relation  ])resume  undue  influence,  the  woman 
being  of  mature  intelligence,  and  the  transaction  having  been 
entered  into  deliberately.' 

Transactions  even  between  mortgagor  and  mortgagee  are 
looked  on  with  jealousy  where  a  mortgagor  in  embarrassed 
circumstances,  and  under  pressure,  sells  the  e<piity  of  redemi>- 
tion  to  the  mortgagee  for  a  lium  considerably  less  than  its 
value.    •• 

In  the  api^lication  of  the  principles  of  the  court,  there  is 
no  distinction  between  the  case  of  one  who  himself  exercises 
a  direct  influence,  or  of  another  who  makes  himself  a  party 
with  the  person  who  exercises  the  undue  influence.' 


'  Colo  V.  Olbson,  1  Ves.  503 ;  Bate 
r.  Bnnk  of  Kii'.;lninl,  '.•  Jur.  .'(15 

*  Wli.laii  r.  Wlii-luii,  :{("(>w.(Amc>r.), 
B3S.  See  Uaniner  r.  Kanliier,  '11  Wiiul. 
(Aincr.V  t'oni]).  Ik-uiiluiid  r.  Bradliy, 
2  Sm.  A  (i.  :!:!'.». 

»  Ilrooks  f.  (jiilly.  2  Atk.  81;  lUWv. 
Howard,  'J  Mod.  :i<)2;  Osinoiid  i'.  Fitz- 
roy,  3  I'.  W.  l'.J'.t;  How  i-.  Weldon.  2 
Ve«.  M'''-,  KvaiiH  v.  Llewellin.  I  Cox, 
8;J3;  Wood  V.  Abrey.  :»  .Miidil.  117; 
IlmlHon  r.  Heiiiuhiirini.  cH.  H  lilii;h,  IH; 
Collins  V.  Unrv.  2  lHi;,'li'H  N.  S.  luti; 
M'I'iarmid  v.  .M'Diurmid.  :»  Hiii^'h'rtN.  S, 
S174;  Aylward  v.  Kearney,   2  15.  A  IJ. 


477  ;  P'Arcy  v.  D'Arcy,  Tlav  «t  J.  115 ; 
Loiiijiiinte  r.  I/tlijer,  2  (Jill.  I'i7;  Cus- 
taiice  t'.  Cminiii^iiam.  lU  Heav.  SG'A; 
Itoui^las  V.  Cidverwcll,  lil  L.  J.  Cl>. 
.M:{  ;  Clark  v.  Malj.as,  if>.  G'.'O;  Hakor  v. 
Monk.  1(1  Jur.  N.  S.  ti'.H  ;  rrideaiix  v. 
l.onsdnle,  1  I>.  J.  d:  S.  4:U»;  Williams  i-, 
Kaiiliv.  L.  K.  1  Apji.  Ca.  200;  Tutor. 
Willi  uiison.  L.  U.  1  Kq.  r.2S. 

*  Ilarjjreave  v.  Everard, « Ir.Cli.  27S. 
'  //.. 

•  I'ord  V.  Olden,  I,.  R.  3  K.).  KU.  Seo 
W.l.li  V.  Uorke.  2  S.h.  A  Lcf.  601 ; 
lli.kes  r.  C..oke.  4  Dow.  li'.. 

'  Ard;,'la.H-so   f.    Tilt,  1    Vern.    238; 


*  Banfjlicr  r.  Merryman.  ?,2  Md.  IH.*;;  Shorkoll  r.  Ilopkins,  2  Mtl.  ("h. 
90;  Doiigliirty  r.  M<  ('<d;;;in,  <>  (}.  iV  J.  21'} ;  Thofiipsoii  i.  Lcc,  2  ^Vla.  292; 
Conway  r.  Alt'xan<ler,  7  Cruiu  li,  21H. 


FRAUD   UPON   TIIIKI*    I'AiniHS.  I'J.") 

The  (lillk'ulty  nl'  dcliiiin^  tliu  [nnnt  ut  which  iiillueiu-e  ex- 
erted over  the  mind  of  a  testator  becomes  so  pressing  as  to 
l)e  |in'iKily  described  as  coercion  is  <;reatly  eidianced  wlien 
the  (luestion  is  one  between  Imshaml  and  wife.*  The  i)re- 
Bumption  of  unihie  inlbience  exercised  l)y  a  liusband  over  a 
feeble  dyinj:;  wife  is  however  far  stroni^er  than  wlien  a  simihir 
cliari^e  is  made  against  a  wife  in  respect  of  her  deceased  hus- 
band.'^ 

AV'iiethcr  a  transaction  can  be  set  aside  on  the  ground  of 
undue  influence,  where  the  influence  luis  been  exercised  not 
by  tlie  party  obtaining  tlie  benefit,  but  by  a  third  person, 
appears  to  be  doubtful." 


SECTION  IV.-FRAUD  UfON  THIRD  PARTIES. 

Another  class  of  frauds  against  wliich  relief  may  be  liac 
in  e<[nity  is  wliere  a  contract  or  other  act  is  substantially  a 
fraud  upon  the  rights,  interests,  or  intentions  of  third  parties. 
The  general  rule  is  that  particular  persons  in  contracts  and 
other  acts  shall  not  only  transact  ho7id  fide  between  them- 
eelves,  but  shall  not  transact  mala  fide  in  respect  to  other 
persons  who  stand  in  such  a  relation  to  either  as  to  be  affected 
by  the  contract  or  the  consequences  of  it.*  Collusion  between 
two  persons  to  the  prejudice  or  loss  of  a  third  is  in  the  eye  ol 
the  court  the  same  as  a  fraud.' 


Esppy  ».  Lak-p,  10  Ila.  2(>0 ;  Wyse  «.  'Clarke  v.  Sawyer,  3  Sandf.  (Amcr.) 

Lambert,  16  Ir.  Cli.  379,  supra,  p.  152.  357. 

'  Boysc  t'.  Kussboroufjli.  3  Jur.  N.  S.  '  Bentley  v.  Mackay.  31   Beav.  143. 

373.  377.     See  Price  i'.  Price,  1  D.  M.  See  Wycberley  v.   Wychcrley,  2  Eden, 

&  G.   3(t8;    Gardner    v.   Gardner,    22  175. 

>Vend.  (Amer.)  52t);  Clarke  ?•.  Sawyer,  *2  Ves.   156,  157,   per  Lord  Hard- 

3  Siindf.  (AnuT.)  351.     Comp.  Middle-  .wicke;  Wallis  v.   Duke  of  Portland,  3 

ton  V.  Middktou,  IJ.  «k  W.  »Jl.  Vcs.  5o2.      ' 

'  Garth  v.  Cotton,  1  Dick.  217. 


IDG  FRATI)   T-r(1X   Tllini)    TAIITIKS. 


ru.M  I)  I  TON  (  i:i:i)iTon3. 

A  class  of  iVaiuls  '  oomiii:;  iimlcr  tlio  lu-nd  (»f  fraud  upon 
third  ])artit's  cinbracos  all  those  agreements  or  other  acts  of 
])arties  which  tend  to  delay,  deceive,  or  defraud  creditors. 
Transactions  of  the  sort  are  void  at  common  law,''  *  hut  tho 

'  Pope  I'.  Wilson.  7  Ala.  f.90.  Topis  i-.  Mid.llt'lon,  2  MmUl.  -IJ-S;   Bor- 

*  Cudognn    v.    Kcnnet,   Cowp.    432;       ton  v.  Vanlieythuyscn,  11  llix.  132. 


♦  Tho  statute  must  be  nccivrd  as  n  true  nnd  nccunitp  declaration  of 
what  tluToiuiuon  law  was.     Clark  r.  Douixlass,  02  IViin.  40H. 

A  debtor  lias  tlio  rijrht  to  pay  liis  debt  to  an  insolvent  creditor  in 
order  to  defeat  an  attachment  which  he  knows  is  al)out  to  be  laid  in  his 
liands,  and  the  court  will  not  inquire  into  the  motive  which  prompted  its 
jiaymcnt.    Simpson  r.  Dall,  3  Wall.  4(51  ;  Chamberlain  r.  Pilisl)ury,  IJo  Vt.  10. 

A  conveyance  by  a  Jcmme  tu>lc  on  the  eve  of  niarriau'c  is  not  Iraudident 
airainst  her  lui^lc.nd's  creditors.  Prior  r.  Kinney,  0  Miinf.  GIO ;  Land  v. 
Jetfries,  5  Uund.  211. 

A  conveyance  in  fraud  of  one  creditor  is  void  as  to  all  creditors.  Hoke 
r.  ITendvrson,  2  Dev.  12. 

Any  agreement  cntcreil  into  by  a  deI)tor  wiih  a  view  to  deprive  his 
creditors  of  his  future  earning-:,  and  enalile  liim  to  ntain  and  use  them 
for  his  own  benelit  and  advant.ige,  is  fraudulent.  Trij)p  i.  Childs,  14 
Barb.  y.i. 

All  conveyances  for  the  u-e  of  the  grantor  arc  fraudulent  and  null 
against  creditors.  Mackie  r.  Cairns,  1  Ilopk.  373;  8.  c.  2  Cow.  (54;  Wil- 
son r.  Cheshire,  1  McCord's  Ch.  233  ;  Brown  r.  Dcmald,  1  Hill's  Ch.  297; 
Jackson  r.  Parker,  0  Cow.  73;  Van  Wyck  r.  Seward,  18  "NVeml.  375; 
Lukin  r.  Aird.  «»  Wall.  7H;  Smith  r.  Smitli,  11  N.  H.  400. 

A  conveyance  upon  trusts  of  a  louse  and  imlefuiite  nature,  and  control- 
able  by  tho  grantor,  is  fraudulent.  Burbank  ;•.  Hammond,  3  Summer 
4  J  9. 

,\  sale  of  i)roi>erty  by  an  in>-olvcnt  debtor  for  long  notes  is  fraudulent. 
Pope  J.  Andrews.  1  Smcd.  \\:  Mar.  Ch.  13.';;  Kepner  r.  Burkhart,  T)  Barr, 
47H;  Borland  r.  Walker,  7  Ala.  209;  Grannis  r.  Smith,  3  Humph.  179; 
Mitchell  r.  I5.al,  8  Ycrg.  134. 

A  deed  of  articles  consumable  in  their  use  is  void  on  its  face  against 
creditors.  Hunter  r.  Foster,  4  Humph.  211;  Wade  r.  Green,  3  Humph. 
.'>47  ;  Charlton  r.  Lcay,  n  Humph.  490;  Bichmond  r.  Ciirdup,  1  Meigs, 
581. 

A  judgment  voluntarily  confessetl  by  an  insolvent  debtor  for  moro 


rUAl  1)    I  TON    TlIliM)    I'AiniKS.  VJ7 

lep;isl!itnre  with  the   \  iuw  of  aniniuM;^  the   nik;  :im\   c-firryin^ 
tho   i)rinciples  ul'  thu   coniinou   law   inuro   fully    into   eireet, 


thnn  is  ilac  is  j)''iina  fncie  frniHlulcnt.  (lark  r.  Douglass,  C2  Penn.  408; 
SfWiill  r.  Kussell,  2  Pai<rc,  175. 

If  a  plaiiitiir  to  an  execution  places  it  in  tin-  liamls  of  the  slurifr  wilii 
nuj"  otlur  view  than  that  of  having  it  hjua  Jide  executed,  it  is  not  vuliil 
against  sulise(|uent  executions.  Weir  v.  Hale,  3  W.  ic  S.  280;  Matthews 
r.  Warnc,  G  Ilalst.  29."). 

A  mortgage  made  by  an  insolvent  del)tor  which  covers  more  property 
than  is  necessary  to  secure  the  mortgage  debt,  is  fraudulent.  JJailey  v. 
Burton,  8  Wend.  339:  Mitchell  v.  Bcal,  8  Yerg.  134;  J  ennett  v.  Union 
Bank,  o  Iluniph.  612  ;  see  Downs  r.  Kis.sam,  10  How.  102. 

A  mortgage  made  in  good  faith  to  secure  future  advances  is  not  fraud- 
ulent. United  States  r.  Hoe,  3  Cranch,  73;  "Wilson  r.  Russell,  13  Md. 
494 ;  Lansing  v.  Woodworth,  1  Sandf.  Cli.  43 ;  Hendricks  v.  liobinson,  2 
Johns.  Ch.  283. 

The  length  of  time  which  a  mortgage  has  to  run  may  in  connection 
•with  other  facts  l)c  evidence  of  fraud.  Spalding  r.  Fisher,  o7  Me.  411- 
Crofts  r.  Arthur,  3  Dessau.  223;  I^Iitchell  v.  Beal,  8  Yerg.  134. 

A  purchase  in  the  name  of  a  third  person  with  intent  to  defraud  tlie 
creditoi-s  of  the  purchaser,  maj*  be  set  aside.  Guy  r.  Faria,  7  Yerg.  155  • 
Kimmel  r.  Mesright,  2  Barr,  38;  Guthrie  r.  Gardner,  9  Wend.  414  •  Far- 
row r.  Teackle,  4  H.  J.  271;  Wiss  r.  Tri])p,  1  Shep.  9;  Peay  r.  Sublet  1 
Mo.  449;  Coleman  t.  Cocke,  G  Rand.  G18;  Elliott  r.  Horn,  10  Ala.  355. 

A  purchase  in  the  name  of  a  third  ])erson  can  not  be  declared  void  in 
an  action  at  law  by  a  j)urchaser  under  a  judgment.  Howe  r.  Bishop,  3 
Met.  2G ;  Dolkray  r.  Mason,  48  Me.  178. 

A  reconveyance  by  the  grantee  under  a  fraudulent  deed  is  fraudulent 
as  to  his  creditors.     Chapin  v.  Pease,  10  Ct.  GO. 

A  mortgage  made  by  the  mortgagor  after  the  execution  of  a  fraudulent 
deed  is  valid  and  binds  the  property.     Fox  r.  Clark,  Walker's  Ch.  535 

A  fraudulent  conveyance  is  void  in  Mo,  and  not  partly  valid  and 
partly  void.  When  a  deed  is  made  void  by  statute,  it  is  void  throughout. 
Mackie  r.  Cairns,  1  Hopk.  373 ;  s.  c.  5  Cow.  547 ;  Kirby  v.  Ingersoll,  Harr- 
ing's  Ch.  172 ;  Hyslop  r.  Clark,  1 1  Johns.  4G4  ;  Weedon  v.  Uawes,  10  Ct. 
50  ;  Tickner  r.  Wishall,  9  Ala  305. 

A  judgment  recovered  after  the  execution  of  the  fraudulent  convey- 
ance is  a  lien  upon  the  land,  except  as  against  hjth'tjldc  purchasers.  Man- 
hattan Co.  r.  Evertson,  G  Paige,  457. 

A  fraudulent  deed  set  aside  at  the  instance  of  creditors,  docs  not  bar 
the  surviving  -wife  of  dower  as  against  creditors  or  purchasers  under  a 
mere  decretal  sale.  Dugan  r.  Massey,  G  Bush,  81  ;  Goodworth  r.  Paiao.  5 
Ohio  St.  R.  70 ;  Summers  r.  Bebb,  13  111.  483 ;  Stribliug  r.  Ross,  IG  lil 


198  niMi)  iroN   thiki)  p autii:.'^. 

declared  by  statutes  50  Kdw.  III,c.  <;,  and  :5  Hen.  VII,  c.  4,  all 
fniudulent  iritts  of  poods  and  fliattrls  in  tni>t  lor  the  donor 
and  to  delVaud  creditors  to  bevuid;  and  by  1.'5  KHz.  c.  T),  all 
gifts,  grants,  and  conveyances  of  goods,  chattels,  or  land, 
made  with  an  intent  to  hinder,  delay,  or  defraud  creditorsi 
were  rendered  void  as  against  the  person  to  whom  such 
frauds  would  be  iTcjudicial.*  Estates,  however,  or  interests 
in  land  or  chattels  conveyed  or  assured  hoiid  fide  and  upon 
good  consideration,  without  notice  of  any  fraud  or  collusion, 
are  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  statute.' 

The  statute  13  Eliz.  c.  5,  does  not  declare  voluntary  con- 
veyances to  be  void,  but  only  declares  all  fraudulent  convey- 


'  Tarleton  •.  Lidddl,  17  Q.  15.  391.  *  13  Eliz.  c.  B.  g.  6,    Poe  Tnrlpton  r. 

Liddcll,  17  Q.  13.  390.  4  Dog   <t  S.  638. 


122;  Pixley  r.  Bcnnott,  11  Mas.s.  298;  Enlunson  r.  Bates,  3  Met.  40 ; 
Kanilolph  r.  Ddss,  ;}  How..  (^lisd.)  iOo;  contra  ^lanliattan  Co.  r.  Evcrtson, 
6  Paige,  457. 

A  purcha.'scr  at  a  sale  under  an  execution  is  clothed  with  all  the  rights 
of  the  judgment  creditor.  Sands  r.  Ilildreth,  2  Johns.  Cli.  35;  8.  c.  14 
Johns.  4!»3 ;  Frakes  r.  Brown,  2  Blackf.  205 ;  Gray  r.  Tappan,  Wright, 
117  ;  Price  r.  Sykes,  1  Hawks,  87. 

A  fraudulent  conveyance  is  valid  against  all  partie-,  except  creditors. 
Riindall  r.  Phiiliiis,  \\  Mason,  378;  Anderson  r.  Bradford,  5  J.  J.  Mar>li. 
69;  Woodman  r.  Bodfish,  25  Me.  817;  Moray  r.  Forsyth,  Walker's  Ch. 
465  ;  Delesdemier  r.  Moary,  2  A])p.  150. 

A  vendee  claiming  uniler  a  fraudulent  deed  gains  no  title  l)y  a  pur- 
chase under  an  execution.     Foulk  r.  M'Farlans,  1  W.  &  S.  2'J7. 

A  wife  having  a  lawful  claim  for  alimony,  is  a  creditor.  Fciglcy  r. 
Feiglcy,  7  Md.  537  ;  Boils  r.  Boils,  1  Cold.  284 ;  Flake  r.  Brown,  2  Blackf. 
295. 

A  person  having  a  claim  for  a  tort,  is  a  creditor.  I.illard  r.  M'Gcc,  4 
Bil)l).  in5  ;  Jackson  r.  Myers,  18  Johns.  425;  Farnsworlh  r.  Nell,  5  Sneed, 
531;  Langfonl  r.  Fly,  7  Humph.  585;  Walradt  r.  Brown,  1  (iilman,  307; 
contra.  Fowler  r.  Frisbie,  3  Ct.  320. 

TIk"  act  applies  to  sureties  aB  well  as  ])rineipal  debtors.  Van  Wyck  r. 
Hkrwnrd,  18  Wend.  375  ;  Howe  r.  Ward,  4  fireenl.  195  ;  Hutchinson  r.  Kelly, 
1  Hob.  123;  Carlisle  r.  Hlrh,  8  N.  II.  44  ;  Russell  r.  Stiuson,  3  Hey.  1 ; 
Thompson  r.  Thompson,  1  A]»p.  214 


FHArD  T'PON  THIRD   TARTirS.  100 

nnccs  to  he  voiM.^  AVht'thcr  a  fdiivryaiicL;  !)»•  IVainliilciit  or 
not  is  (Ic'clarcd  by  the  statute"  to  depend  uj)uii  its  hein;^  made 
"upon  good  consideration  and  hond  fidcP  It  is  not  sufficient 
tliat  it  he  up(»ii  i^oitd  (.•onsidLTation  or  himd  jidf.  It  must  he 
both.  Althoui;]i  a  deed  he  made  upon  good  consideration 
within  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  it  is  void  against  creditors, 
unless  it  he  hand  fide?  *  Tlie  expression  "  good  considera- 
tion" in  tlie  statute  means  vahiahlo  consideration.  Meritorious 
consideration,  sucli  as  h)ve,  allcction,  iS:c.,  tliouirli  g  »»m1  as 
between  tlie  parties  themselves,  is  not  in  the  eye  of  the  law 
bona  fidcyM  it  is  inconsistent  with  that  good  faith  which  is 
due  to  creditors.^  t  As  between  the  parties  themselves  and 
all  persons  claiming  under  them  in  privity  of  estate,  voluntary 
conveyances  are  binding/  but  in  so  tar  as  they  have  the  eflect 
of  delaying,  defrauding,  or  deceiving  creditors,  voluntary  con- 
veyances are  not  hond  fide,  and  are  void  as  against  creditors 
to  the  extent  to  which  it  may  be  necessary  to  deal  with  the 
property  to  their  satisfiietion.  To  this  extent,  and  to  this 
extent  only,  they  will  be  treated  as  if  they  had  not  been  made. 
To  every  other  jjurpose  they  are  good.' 

'Russell    V.  ITftnini'iml,  1  Atk.   13;  Fraser  v.  Tliompson,  4  D.   <fe  J.  600 

Doe  j>.  KoutleiliTc.  C'owp.  70S ;  Cadogan  Coilett  v.  Iladclitle,  14  Moo.  P.  C.  121, 

V.  Kennett,   ib.  -V^-l.  434  ;  Ilolloway   v.  13.5. 

Millard.  1  Madd.  414;  Gale  v.  AVilliam-  '  Copis  v.  Middieton,  2  Madd.  430; 

son,  8  M.  it  W.  405.  Taylor  v.  Jones,  2  Atk.  COO  ;   Strong  v. 

"Twyne's    Case.    3    Co.     Eep.    81;  Strong'.    18  Beav.  408;    Goldsmith  v. 

Worsley  v.  De  Mattos,    1    Burr.   474,  Kussell.  5  D.  M.  i  G.  547. 

475;  Cados:an  v.  Kennett,  Cowp.  434;  *  I'etre  t'.  E.spiiiasse,  2  M.  <fc  K.  496; 

Bott  t'.  Smith,  21  Beav.  510  ?  Jiarman  Bell   v.    Cureton,   ih.   5(i3 ;    French   v. 

V.  Richards.  1<>  Ua.  81 ;  Thompson  v.  French,  6  D.  M.  <fc  G.  '.t5. 

Webster,  4   Drew.  (VIS;    7  Jur.   N.   S.  *  Curtis  v.  Price,  12  Yes.  103;  Wors- 

531 ;  Lloyd  v.  Attwood,  3  D.  <fc  J.  055;  ley  v.  De  Mattos,  1  Burr.  474  :  Bott  v. 


*  "Whiting  r.  John-;on,  11  St.  R.  328;  Clements  r.  Moore,  G  "Wall.  229; 
Ashmcatl  r.  Hcan,  13  Penn.  584. 

t  Edgington  r.  ."Williams,  "Wright,  439;  Gooclell  r.  Taylor,  Wright,  82  ; 
O'Brien  r.  Coulter,  2  Blaekf.  421 ;  Killough  r.  Steele,  1  Stew.  &  Port.  2(52. 

The  services  of  a  minor  son,  unless  emancipated,  are  not  a  good  con- 
Bideratiou.  Dick  r.  Grissom,  1  Freem,  428 ;  Brown  r.  McDonald,  1  Uillg 
Ch.  300. 


200  rUAll)    I  TON    TIllKI*    I'AKTII.S. 

A  (1  i-'l  wliii-li  ;ii>])t'!irs  to  lie  V(^luIltary  iii.iy  lie  sliown  by 
any  I'viiloncc  (consistiiit  with  its  terms)  to  liavo  hceii  niado 
fur  valualde  consiik'ratioii,'  l»ut  the  evidence  must  be  clear  and 
free  from  sus}»i('i<»M.* 

It  is  nut  enoUij:li,  in  order  to  suj)j)ort  a  settlement  a^^ainst 
creditors,  that  it  he  made  tor  vahiahle  consideration.  It  must 
also  be  bond  ,/?</<.  Jt'  it  he  made  witli  intent  to  delay,  hinder, 
or  defraud  creditors,  it  is  voi(l  as  against  them,  although  there 
may  l»e  in  the  strictest  sense  a  valuable  or  even  an  adequate 
consideration.'*     Cases  have  frecjuently   occurred,   iu   "which 

Smith,  21  Boav.  SIC;  Croker  v.  Martin,  v.  "\Villi!un«on,  8  M.  it  W.  -lO.') ;  Kelson 

1  IJlisrIi's  N.  S.  r>73  ;  Frcntii  r.  I'nncl),  v.   Kelson,    li>    lln.  :iS:>;    Towni-nd  v. 

6  D.  M.  <fc  Ct.  <.K>;  Ncnlo  r.  Day.  '2S  L.  Toker,  L.    U.  1   Ch.    .Vp.  416,  iiipra,  \k 

J.  Ch.  45.     See  Waketi.ld  v.  Giblxm.  1  1'.I2. 

Giff.  4nl  ;  Murpliy  r.  .\braliain,  1')   Ir.  '  Graham  v.  O'Kfcfo,  Irt  Ir.  Ch.  1. 

Ch.  371  ;  Shttw  v.  Jcflrcy,  13  iloo.  V.  *  Twvne's  Casse,  3  Co.  Hep.  81;  Uol- 

C.  432.                                 '  mes  v.  i'enney,  3  K.  <k  J.  M'J. 
» I'ott  V.  Toilhunter,  2  Coll.  70;  Gale 


*  Cragg  r.  M:irtin,  13  Allen,  498;  Bnuly  r.  Briscoe,  12  J.  J.  [Marsh. 
212;  Boznian  r.  Draughan,  3  Stew.  343 ;  Kempner  r.  Churchill,  8  Wall. 
302 ;  "Ward  r.  Trotter,  3  ^lon.  1  ;  Ayfls  r.  Moore,  2  Stew.  330  ;  Trotter  r. 
Watson,  G  Humph.  509 ;  Peck  r.  Land,  2  Kelly,  1  ;  Farmers'  Bank  r. 
Douglass,  11  Smed.  it  Mar.  409;  Dacey  r.  Daniel,  1  Smith,  2r)2;  Wrigiit 
f.  Brandi.<,  1  Carter,  330 ;  Carr  r.  Hill,  1  Stockt.  210;  Bum  r.  Abl,29  Poun. 
887;  Root  r.  Reynolds,  32  Vt.  139. 

A  deed  not  at  first  fraudulent  may  become  so  by  being  concealed  or 
not  pursued,  if  creditors  are  thereby  drawn  to  give  credit  to  the  grantor. 
Uildreth  r.  Sands,  2  Johns.  Ch.  '.i'> ;   Perins  r.  Dunn,  3  Johns.  Ch.  WS. 

A  conveyance  to  a  creditor  of  property  sullicient  to  pay  his  full  del)t 
upon  condition  that  he  will  give  a  portion  to  the  grantor's  wife,  is  fraud- 
ulent.    Kissjim  r.  Kdmonston,  1  Ired.  Eq.  180. 

A  Bul>s4'<iuent  payment  will  not  give  validity  to  a  conveyance  that  was 
originally  fraudulent.  Poague  r.  Boyce,  0  J.  J.  Marsh.  70;  Lynde  r.  Mc- 
Gregor, 13  Alien,  213;  llartman  r.  Diller,  02  Pcnn.  37;  Pettiltone  r, 
Stevens,  15  Ct.  19;  Thomas  r.  Goodwin,  12  Mass.  1 10. 

If  an  instrument  is  made  with  the  intent  to  hinder  and  delay  creditors, 
it  is  not  purged,  becau.Hc  the  grantor  may  nlso  have  ha<l  some  other  pur- 
pose in  view.     Reed  r.  Noxon,  IH  111.  323;  Merry  r.  Bostwick.  13  111.  21. 

A  «leed  which  misrepresents  the  transaction  which  it  recites,  and  tho 
consideration  upon  which  it  is  foumbd,  is  liable  to  suspicion,  but  if 
uiKia  inveatigation  the  real  transaction  appears  to  be  fair  thoujli  sonio- 


FUALli   LTON    TIlll:i)    I'AKTIIl.S.  UOl 

persons  liavo  given  a  full  and  fair  price  i\jv  goods,  and  wlieru 
the  j)os.session  has  been  actually  changed,  yet  being  done  for 
the  purjKJse  of  delaying  or  defeating  creditors  the  transaction 
has  been  heltl  fraudulent,  and  has  therefore  been  set  aside  as 
against  theni.^  Thougli  there  be  a  judgment  against  the 
vendor,  and  the  purchaser  has  notice  of  it,  that  fact  will  not, 
of  itself,  atlect  the  validity  of  the  sale  of  ])ersonal  pro})erty. 
Ijut  if  the  purchaser,  knowing  of  the  judgment,  ])urchase3 
with  the  view  and  purpose  to  defeat  the  creditor's  execution, 
it  is  iniquitous  and  fraudulent,  notwithstanding  he  may  have 
given  a  full  ])rice,  for  it  is  assisting  the  debtor  to  injure  the 
creditor.     The  question  of  fraud  depends  on  the  motive.'  * 

'  Holmes  V.  Penncv,  3  K.   cfe  J.  99 ;  M   Biirr.  474;  Cowp.  434,  per  Lord 

Worslcy  v.   De   Mattos,    1   Burr.  474,  Mansfiuld;    8   Tuunt.    078,  per  Dallas, 

475;  Cadognii  v.   KL-nnutt,  Cowp.  434 ;  C.  J, 
Ilarman  v.  Uichnrds,  10  Ha.  81. 


what  variant  from  that  which  is  described,  it  will  be  valid.  Shirras  r. 
Craig,  7  Cranch,  ;U ;  Storcr  r.  Ilairiiif^ton,  7  Ala.  142 ;  Frost  v.  Warren, 
43N.  Y.  204;  Hubbard  r.  Turner,  2  McLean,  519;  Bumpass  v.  Dotson, 
7  Humph.  310. 

A  deed  absolute  in  form  but  intended  as  a  mortgage,  is  valid  if  made 
in  gooil  faitli.  Chickering  v.  Hatch,  3  Sumner,  474;  Butler  r.  Stoddard. 
7  Paige,  103 ;  Smith  r.  Onion,  19  Vt.  427 ;  Halcombe  r.  Ray,  1  Ired.  340 ; 
contra,  North  r.  Belden,  13  Ct.  376;  Tift  r.  Walker,  10  X.  H.  150; 
Hadstior  r.  Williams,  31  Ala.  149. 

*  Lowry  r.  Pinson.  2  Bailey,  324  ;  Hickman  r.  Quinn,  6  Yerg.  36 ; 
Bullock  V.  Irving,  4  Munf.  450 ;  Bird  r.  Aitken,  1  Bice's  Ch.  73;  Thorn- 
ton r.  Davenport,  1  Scam.  290  ;  Williams  r.  Jones.  2  Ala.  314;  Clemens  r. 
Davis,  7  Barr,  203 ;  Betters  r.  Smith,  4  Rich.  E(i.  197. 

It  is  not  sufficient  that  a  creditor  knows  of  the  double  intent  of  the 
debtor  to  give  a  preference  and  to  defeat  other  creditors,  and  that  he  con- 
curs in  the  act  by  which  that  intent  in  both  its  aspects  is  effectuated.  He 
must  have  concurred  in  the  illegal  intent  l)efore  he  can  be  involved  in  its 
consequences.  Ford  r.  Williams,  3  B.  Mon.  550;  Worland  r.  Kiinberlin, 
0  15.  Mon.  008;  Brown  r.  Smith,  7  B.  "Sloii.  301. 

Notice  of  the  fraudulent  intent  before  the  payment  of  the  jnirchaso 
money  will  make  the  conveyance  fraudulent.  Parkinson  r.  Hanna.  7 
Blackf.  400;  Johnson  v.  Brandia.  1  Smith,  203;  White  r.  Graves,  7  J.  J. 
Marsh.  523. 

A  conveyance  can  not  b3  impeached  by  proof  of  a  fraudulent  iotcat 
14 


202  THAI  I)  ri'oN'  riiii:!)  i-aktiks. 

The  Citn.Mdcrrttion  (»t'  iii.irriai^i',  altli<»iii;li  the  most  valuablo 
of  all  considoratioiis,  it"  tluTo  he  bond  ,^V/<'.s','  will  intt  support  a 
settlcnuMit  l»y  a  man  iu  iiisdlvciit  <ii-  embarrassed  circum- 
Btancos,  if  there  be  evidence  to  show  that  the  intended  wife 
was  implicated  in  any  design  to  delay  or  defraud  the  cred- 
itors of  the  intended  husband,  or  that  the  marria;ri'  was  part 
of  a  scheme  or  contrivance  between  them  to  j»rotect  hid 
proi)erty  against  the  claims  ot  his  creditors.'* 

A  postnuptial  settlement  made  in  pursuance  of  a  prior 
valid  written  ai^^reement  is  valid  against  creditors,t  but  a 
parol  antenuptial  airrecment  does  not  prevent  a  postnuptial 
settlement  from  being  V(_)luntary.^  Xor  will  the  written 
recognition  alter  marriage  of  a  verl>al  ])romise,  made  before 


'  Cnmiiion  ».  Cotton,  17  Ves.  Sfil;  »  Spiireeon  v  Colli. t.   1   Eilen,  61; 

Er-uartc  M'lJurnif,  1   1).  M.  tt  G.  441 ;  Ilnndtill  v.   Mortjnn,   12  Vi's.  07;   Las- 

DilKfs  I'.  IJrtKuliiR'inl,  '1  ]).  V.  it  J.  rxK).  gence  v.  Tieriicy,  1  .Mac.  «k  G.  fiM  ;  Ex- 

*  ColombitR'  t'.  I'<nliull,  1  Sin.  «t  (J.  j^rtr   M'Burnu',    1    1>.   M.    AG.   446; 

228;'Fraser  v.  Tli<.mi)s..n,  4  1).  «fe  J.  Wnnk-n  v.  Jones.  2  D.  &  J.  70;  Goldi- 

6<X).     Hee  ex-parh  M'Uuruii',  1  1).  M.  <k  cutl  i-.  Townscnil,  28  IJoav.  445. 
G.  445. 


on  the  part  of  the  prantor,  unless  it  is  knomi  to  the  grantee.  Green  v. 
Tanner.  H  M..-t.  411;  Sands  r.  IIil..lretli,  14  Johns.  4!):5;  Aster  r.  W'HIs,  4 
"NVhent.  406;  Stover  r.  llcrrinjxton,  7  Ala.  142;  Violctt  r.  Violett,  2  Diina, 
32:J ;  Partcls  r.  Harris,  20  Ct.  480;  Splaun  t.  Martin,  17  Ark.  14G  ;  Chou- 
teau r.  Sherman,  11  Mo.  38j  ;  Bancrotl  r.  Blizzanl,  lU  Ohio,  HO. 

Although  the  law  jjerinit-i  a  failing  di-lttor  to  maki-  a  prclVn-nce,  it 
denii-s  hin»  liu-  riglit  while  doing  so  to  provide  that  iinprelerred  creditors 
shall  never  be  paid.     Dniry  r.  Cro.>9.  7  Wall.  2'.»9. 

♦  A  uiarriuge  settlement  must  Iw  reasonable,  and  with  a  due  regard  to 
the  rights  of  others.  If  it  is  di.xproportionate  to  the  means  of  the  grantor, 
it  is  fniudulent.  Simj)son  r.  Graves,  Riley's  Ch.  2112;  Croft  r.  Arthur, 
;3  Deanau.  22:!. 

To  make  an  antenuptial  .xettlement  voi<l  as  a  fraud  upon  creditor.-J,  it  is 
necessary  that  l»oth  parties  bhould  eoncur  in  or  have  eogui/anec  of  the 
fraud.     3Iagniac  r.  Tliompson,  7  Pet.  'M^. 

A  conveyance  by  the  grantee  under  a  fraudulent  dec<l  to  a  creditor  of 
the  grantor  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  his  debt,  is  valid.  Urown  v. 
Webb,  20  Ohio,  :(H». 

t  Mngniac  r.  Thompson,  7  I'et.  3;^8;  J.ockwoo<l  r.  Nelson,  10  Ala.  204, 


ruAii)  I  IN  IN  Tiiiui)  I'Airnr.s.  203 

marriage,  Bupi)ort  a  postnuptial  settleincnt  against  creditors.' 
l*o.stiiii])tial  SL'ttk'iiU'iits  arc,  as  a  fjeiit'ral  rule,  voluntary 
deeds,  and,  llieref'ore,  void  as  a;^ain.st  crcilitors;' *  hut  in 
certain  cases  tJie  citncurrence  of  a  stranircr  may  dcpri\('  a 
postnuptial  settlement  of  its  vnluntarv  cliaiMctcr.^  So  also  a 
postnuptial  settlement  made  on  the  recei])t  of  an  additional 
portion  is  a  settlement  for  valuable  consideration.*  The  fart 
that  a  ])ostnuptial  settlement  may  be  founded  on  a  moi'al 
duty,  will  iidt  deprive  it  of  its  volimtarv  character.'  In  cer- 
tain cases,  howcvei',  a  settlement  made  nj)on  a  wife  aftfi- 
marria<^a^,  is  not  to  be  treated  as  wludly  voluntary,  Avhere  it  is 
done  in  performance  of  a  duty  which  a  court  of  equity  would 
enforce.f  Tluis,  if  a  man  should  contract  a  marriage  by 
stealth  with  a  w<»man  having  a  considerable  fortune  in  the 
hands  of  trustees,  and  he  should  afterwards  make  a  suitable 
provision  on  her  in  respect  of  her  fortune,  the  settlement 
would  not  be  set  aside  in  favor  of  the  creditors  of  the  husband, 
since  a  court  of  erpiity  would  not  suffer  him  to  take  pos- 
session of  her  fortune,  without  making  a  suitable  settlement 
on  her.' 

'  Randall  t'.  Morj^an,   12  Vcs,  C7;  'Moore  v.  Rycault,  Free.  Ch.    22, 

"WariK-n  v.  Joius,  2  1).  &,  J.  70.  niul  other  cases  cited,  1  Fonk.  Bk.  1,  c. 

^  yiig.  V.  &  v.  715.  4,  g  12,  and  note  (/>),  ih.  c.  2,  ^  6;  Jones 

*  Dart.  V.  A' P.  576.    See  Ilolmes  i-.  v.  alarsh,  Ca.  t.  Talb.  64;  Wheeler  i;. 

Penney,  3  K.  &  J.  90.  Caryl,  Amb.   121;  Jewson  v.  Moulson 

*buir.  V.  &  r.  718;  Dart,  V.  ifc  P.  2  Atk.  417:    Middlecombe  v.  Marlow. 

570.  »7>.  ol'.t;  Ward   v.  ShuUett,  2  Yes.    li".; 

'  ITolloway  v.   Ilcadinfjcton,  8  Sim.  Kani--(len  v.  Ilylton,  t7>.  3o4;   Arundell 

S24;  Jetlervs  v.  Jcfferys,  Cr.  d:  Ph.  138,  v.  Pliijips,  lo  Yes.  139. 
141. 


*  Izard  r.  Izard.  1  Bailey's  Ch.  228:  Saunders  v.  Ferrill,  1  Led.  97; 
Deerlifll  r.  Fisher,  K.  M.  Charlton,  30;  Blow  r.  ]\Iaynard,  2  Leigh,  29; 
Jones  i\  Henry,  3  Litt.  427;  Simpson  r.  Graves,  liiliy's  Ch.  232. 

t  Wickes  V.  Clark,  3  Ed\y.  Ch.  .58:  Bank  of  U.  S.  r.  Brown.  Riley's 
Ch.  131;  Smith  r.  Greer.  3  Humph.  118;  Garrell  r.  Grant,  4  Met.  4^*3; 
McCauley  r.  Rhodes,  7  B.  IMon.  462. 

An  antenuptial  settlement  upon  the  intended  wife  and  ht-r  children, 
born  before  marriage,  is  valid.  Coutts  r.  Grecnhoni.  2  ^lunf  3iJ3  ;  8.  c.  4 
Hon.  &  M.  485. 


'-^04  rnAi'i)  ri'(»N   iiiiKi*  I'AP.Tirs. 

An  :mtoini|iti;il  (.('ttliMiieiit  nuifaiiiiii';  trusts  in  favor  of  tlio 
husband,  \\i\\\  niul  issui-,  :m«l  mIm.  ulfcrinr  trusts  for  colInteraltJ 
is,  so  far  as  thf  ulterior  trusts  nro  cont'erned,  V(»luntarv  ;'  Imt 
if  tljc  limitations  in  the  settU-nionts  so  interfere  with  those 
Avhieh  would  naturally  be  made  in  favor  of  the  husband,  wife, 
and  issue,  that  thev  must  be  presutned  to  have  been  airrccd 
upon  by  all  parties,  as  jtart  «>f  the  marriai^c  eontract,  they  are 
not  voluntary  and  will  be  uj)held.'^ 

There  is  some  inconsistency  in  the  decided  eases  on  the 
subject  of  conveyances  in  fraud  of  creditors.  Some  cases 
appear  to  lay  down  the  rule  that  a  deed  is  not  invalid,  unless 
the  grantor  or  settler  was  at  the  time  iii(lel>tcd  to  the  extent 
of  insolvency,  l)Ut  tlie  rule  as  so  laid  down  is  clearly  not  cor- 
rect.' According'  to  dir/a,  in  other  casies,  a  voluntary  settle- 
ment is  not  invalid,  althoui,di  the  settler  may  have  been 
considerably  indebted  at  the  time  of  the  settlement,  provided 
he  was  not  indclited  licyond  his  means  of  j)ayment  rcmainini^ 
after  the  settlement.*  But  in  Spirett  v.  Willows,*  Lord  West- 
Itury  laid  it  down  as  the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the 
cases,  that  if  the  debt  of  the  creditor,  by  whom  the  voluntary 
settlement  is  impeached,  existed  at  the  date  of  the  settlement, 
and  it  be  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  settlement  that 
creditors  are  defrau«led  or  delayed,  it  is  immaterial  whether 
the  debtor  was  or  was  not  solvent  alter  makini,'  the  settle- 
ment. ''The  fact,''  he  said,  "of  a  voluntary  settler  retaining 
money  enough  to  pay  the  debts  which  he  owes  at  the  time  of 
making  the  scttlemiiit,  luit  not  actually  paying  ihcni,  caniutt 
give  a  different  character  to  the  settlement  or  take  it  out  of 
the  statute.     It  still  remains  a  voluntarv  alienation  (»r  deed  of 


'  Smith  r.  Chfrrill.  L.  U.  4  Kq.  :!'.iO.  Henv.  :M0;   Sknrf  v.  Sonlliy,   1    Mnc.  A 

»(.lnrko  V.  Writrl.t,  (i  II.  it  N.  Kf.y ;  (J.  :i»V»,    l    II.  ,t  Tw.   .J'J»";    I-'r.nrli    v. 

iJart,  V.  <t  I'.  f'TH,  .''Hi.  ».<•..  „i/rri,  KniH-li.  I'.  1>.  .M.    it    (;.   \»r>;   Stwiinl   v. 

*  4  Drew,  6:52  /xr  K'hiiIithIi-v.  V.-C.  Jackmin,  H  Cow.  (Arin-r.),  lort. 

*  Sco     Tuwnm;inl     v.    W^htiicoU,    2  *  34  L.  J.  Cli.  365. 


FIIAI   I>    I   I'ON     rilllM*    I'AKTIES.  20.") 

^ilY,  wlicrchv  in  tlio  event  tlic  jTiiic<lics  of  creditors  arc  'ije- 
layetl,  liiiuloreil,  or  (let"raii<li'<l.' "'  'I'lic  rule-  r-o  laid  down  may 
oj)erate  liarslily  in  cases  wlicix-  an  ain])le  Innd  is  retained  l»y  a 
settler  I'ui'  the  payiiiL'Ut  of  liis  (lrl»ts,  ami  lie  al'terwards,  at 
some  distance  uftinie,  loses  or  spends  so  much  of  his  j)ro]»erty 
as  not  to  leave  enough  to  pay  snch  de])ts.  But  the  rule 
appears  on  the  mIioIo  to  he  sound,  and  agrees  with  the 
opinion  of  JCent,  C^,  in  Livingstone  v.  Ileade.'  "The  con- 
elusion,''  he  said,  "to  he  drawn  fi-oni  the  cases  is  that  if 
the  party  is  indehted  at  the  time  of  the  voluntary  settlement, 
it  is  ])resunied  to  he  fraudulent  in  respect  to  such  debts, 
and  no  circumstance  Avill  permit  those  dehts  to  Ijc  aHected  hy 
the  settlement  or  repel  the  legal  presumption  of  fraud.  The 
presumption  of  law  in  this  case  does  not  depend  upon  the 
amount  of  debts  or  the  extent  of  the  property  in  settlement 
f»r  the  circumstances  of  the  party.  There  is  no  such  line  of 
distinction  set  up  or  traced  in  any  of  the  cases.  The  attempt 
wt»uM  be  embarrassing,  if  not  dangerous  to  the  rights  of  cred- 
itors, and  prove  an  iidet  to  fraud.  The  law  has,  therefore, 
\visely  disabled  the  del)tor  from  making  any  voluntary  settle- 
ment of  liis  estate  to  stand  in  the  Avay  of  existing  debts."  It 
must,  however,  be  observed  that  the  reasoning  of  Kent,  C, 
has  not  been  followed  in  later  American  cases,  and  that  the 
doctrine  has  not  been  pressed  to  the  extent  of  holding  a  volun- 
tary conveyance  made  on  a  meritorious  consideration,  as  of 
blood  and  atfection,  void,  because  there  was  a  small  indebted- 
ness at  the  time.  The  better  doctrine  has  been  lield  to  1)6 
that  there  is  no  absolute  presumption  of  fraud  which  entirely 
disregards  the  intent  and  purpose  of  the  conveyance,  if  the 
grantor  happened  to  be  indebted  at  the  time  it  was  made,  but 
that  such  a  conveyance,  under  such  circumstance,  afibrds  only 

'  Sec  Fiench  »-.  Fronch;  fi  D.  M.  it:       C.  121,  135  ;  Smith  i-.  Chcrrill,  L.  R.  4 
G.  95  ;  Tlionipsoa  i*.  Wibster,  7  -Tii!-.  N.       Eq.  li'.ij. 
S.  bol ;  Corlett  v.  UadcUfie,  1 1  Moo.  1'.  »  3  Johns.  Ch.  (Amcr.),  500, 


•J()t'.  IKAl  I>    I  ioN    •Illli:i>    I'AKTIES. 

2>rima  fitc'uy  or  |)rc'suin])tive  eviileiici'  of  iVaiitl,  whicli  may  l»e 
rt'buttoil  or  (•••ntrollrd,  tlu*  •(Ui'stioii  boliiir  in  each  wkjc  a  ques- 
tion'of  fact  for  the  jiiiv.* 

Tn  liis  Coninientaries'  Kent,  C,  a(huits  tlie  tendency  of 
the  ilceisions  both  in  America  and  Knijhind  to  he  to  leave  tlie 
conchi>ion  of  fraud  as  a  matter  of  fact  tor  a  jury  ;  hut  he  does 
not  a]>})rove  of  the  ride,  and  adheres  to  tlie  doctrine  of  Koade 
r.  Liviuirstone,  and  thinks  that  the  presumption  of  fraudulent 
intent  in  cases  of  the  sort  may  and  outrht  to  be  an  inference 
of  law.»* 

The  i>rovisions  of  the  stat.  13  Eliz.  c.  5,  are  not  confined 
to  cxistiui;  creditors,  but  extend  to  subsequent  creditors,  whoso 

'  Sewanl  r.  Jackson.  8  Cow.  (Amor.),  mnrth,  9  i7>.  3">r. ;  Story'.-*  Eq.  Jur.  36± 

4(»i>;  Bank  of  I'nited  States  c.  House-  See  also  Thompson  y.  Wi-bster.  4  Drew, 

man,  6  I'niire  (.Viner. ),  .')2iJ ;  Wickcs  r.  082.  ywr  Kinilersley,  V.-C. ;   Graham  r. 

Chirke.  »  l'uii;e  (Anu-r. ),  ir..'>;  llintle's  O'lC-efc,  1»>  Jr.  Ch.'l. 

Lessees     ».      Loncjwortli,     11      Wheat.  '  Vol.  2,  p.  442. 

(Amer.).   I'.t9;  Tlmcher  v.   rhiiiney,  7  '  See  Van  Wyck  r.  Seward,  18  Wend. 

Allen    (Amer.),    150;    Lcrow   v.    Wil-  (Amer.)  392,  405. 


*  A  voluntary  conveyance  l)y  a  person  not  indebted  is  good  against 
future  crcditoi's.  So.xton  r.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  229  ;  Bi-nton  r.  Jones,  8 
Ct.  ixG;  Mattingly  v.  Xye,  8  Wall.  370 ;  Davis  r.  Payne,  4  Hand.  332; 
Baker  r.  Welch,  4  Mo.  484. 

A  voluntary  deed  by  a  person  indebted  at  the  time  of  its  execution  is 
not  absolutely  void  as  again.st  creditors.  The  mere  fact  of  being  in  debt 
does  not  make  the  deed  fraudulent  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  gift  was  a 
na.'ional'I''  provision  according  to  the  state  and  eondition  of  the  grantor, 
and  left  cnou^di  for  tin*  payment  of  debts.  The  want  of  consideration  is 
only  n  presumptive  liadge  of  fraud,  and  may  Ik'  nu-t  and  rebutted  by 
evi<lence  on  the  other  side.  Ilinde  r.  Longworth,  11  Wheat.  190;  Parish 
r.  Murphree,  13  How.  92;  Salmon  v.  Btnnett,  1  Ct.  525;  Ilopkirk  r. 
Randolph,  2  Brork.  132;  Leyne  r.  Bankof  Ky.,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  545;  Young 
I.  White,  2")  Mis«.  110;  Carpenter  r.  Hoe,  HI  N.  Y.  227;  Wilson  r.  Houser, 
12  Penn.  I'lO ;  Lerow  r.  Wilinarth,  9  Allen.  ;(S2  ;  Do  Id  r.  MiCraw,  3  Eng. 
H3;  Amctt  «.  Wanett,  0  Ired.  41;  Hall  r.  IMrington,  8  B.  .Mon.  47 ; 
Ktfwart  V.  Rogers.  25  Iowa,  395;  Van  Wyck  r.  Seward,  18  Wend.  375  ; 
Bank  of  Alexandria  r.  Patton,  1  Hob.  499;  Dillard  r.  Dillard,  3  Humph. 
11^;   Bird  r.  Boldue,  1  .M...  701. 

The  relin'pii'-hment  of  a  m  irifal  right  to  a  legacy  is  valid  against 
creditors.     Oa'lego  r,  CJall  ^'o,  2  Bro.k.  'iS't. 


FilAlI)    I  IMlN    'niIKU    TAUTIKS.  -07 

ck'lits  liiiil  not  been  contracted  at  tlic  date  of  the  settlement ; ' 
liut  the  principle  will  not  operate  in  favor  of  liub.sejjuent  cred- 
itors, unless  it  can  be  shown  either  that  the  ficttler  made  the 
settlement  with  tlic  cxprc.-s  intent  to  "delay,  hinder,  <.r 
defraud''  ])ers(»ns  wlio  niii;ht  become  creditors,'*  or  that  after 
the  settlement  the  settU-r  had  not  sullicient  means  or  reason- 
able exi)ectation  of  hchiy;  aide  to  pay  liis  then  cxistin<,'  debts, 
in  which  case  the  law  iniers  that  the  settlement  was  nuide 
with  intent  to  delay,  hinder,  or  defrau«l  creditors,' f  or  at  least 
that  there  are  debts  unsatistied  which  were  due  at  the  date  of 
the  settlement.*  If  at  the  time  of  liling  the  bill  no  debt  due 
at  the  execution  of  the  settlement  remains  unpaid,  and  there 
is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  settlement  had  for  its  object 
the  delayinir,  hindcrini,^  or  defrauding  of  subsequent  creditors, 
the  settlement  prevails  against  theni,^ :}:  but  if  any  debt  due  at 

'  Tnrback  v.  Mnrhiirv,  2  Vcrn.  600.  307,  per  Lord  Wcsthury  ;  Tliomi)Son  v. 

'  Stileinaii   v.  Aslidown,  2  Atk.  481;  Web.-tcr,  7  Jiir.  N.  S.  .5:n.    Conip.  IIol- 

Stcplitns  V.   Ollivi',   2  Bro.  C.   C.  '••! ;  nies  v.  Peniu'V,  'i  K.  tt  J.  9'i. 

llolloway    V.    :Miilnrd.    1     Madd.    414;  ♦Jeidivn   i*.   Vaii-han,  3  Drew.  410 ; 

lli.liius  t'.  IVniu'v,  :{  K.  tk  .J.  90;    IJarl-  IWtoii  v.  Vanheyiliuysen,  11   lla.  132. 

in;,'  V.    liUhop.  2*0  Bcav.  417;  Murphy  Couip.  Holmes  v.  reniicy,  3  K.  <t  J.  Oit. 

r."!\bra]iam,  15  Ir.  (li.  371.  '  Jeiikyu   v.   Vnii^^liaii,  3  Drew.  410. 

'  Spiretl  I'.  Willows,  31    L.    J.    Ch.  See   Uussell  v.   Hammond,  1    Atk.  13; 


♦  Case  V.  Phelps,  39  N.  Y.  KU;  Hall  r.  Sands.  52  Mc.  355;  Bedford  r. 
Crane,  1  C.  E.  Green,  205  ;  Henderson  r.  Dodd,  1  Bailey's  Ch.  138;  Blake 
V.  Jones,  1  Bailey's  Ch,  141  ;  Russell  v.  Stenson,  3  lley.  1 ;  Cosby  r.  Ross, 
3  J.  J  Marsh.  2<J0 ;  Bogard  v.  Gardley,  4  Smed.  &  Mar.  302  ;  Wright  r. 
Henderson,  7  How.  (Miss.)  539 ;  Iknry  r.  Fullerton,  13  Smed.  &  M  ir. 
G31 ;  Mullen  v.  Wilson,  44  Pcnn.  413;  Savage  r.  Murphy,  8  Bosw.  7.i; 
Carlisle  r.  Rich.  8  X.  II.  44  ;  Winchester  v.  Charter,  12  Allen,  GOG  ;  97 
Mass.  140;  102  M;is.h.  272. 

t  Parkman  r.  Welch,  19  Pick.  231  ;  Bank  of  Alexandria  r.  Atwater,  1 
Kob.  499;  Hutchinson  v.  Kelly,  1  Rob.  123;  lley  r.  Niswang.'r,  1  Me- 
Cord'sCh.  518;  s.  c.  1  Harp.  Ch.  295;  Hamilton  r.  Thomas,  5  Hey.  127; 
Hanzen  v.  Power,  8  Dana,  91  ;  Mason  r.  Rogers,  1  Root,  324  ;  Miller  r. 
Thompson,  3  Port.  198;  Clark  r.  French,  10  Shep.  221;  .McConipe  r. 
Sawyer,  12  N.  H.  396 ;  Thompson  v.  Dougherty.  12  S.  ctR.  448;  Somcr- 
ville  r.  Horton,  4  Yerg.  541  ;  Darwin  r.  Ilandley,  3  Yerg.  :'02  :  Simpson 
r.  Mitchell,  8  Yerg.  417;  King  r.  Wilcox,  11  Paige,  589  ;  lle.ster  r.  Wil- 
kinson. G  Humph.  215. 

;  Talc  r.  Tate,  1  Dev.  &  Bat.  Eq.  22 ;  Ingram  r.  Philii)3,  3  Strobh.  8G5. 


'2i)i> 


riiAii)  I  PON  Tiiii;i)  I'AKTir.s. 


the  (Into  of  the  Pottloiiuiit  rrm:iiiis  iin^;iti>lir(l  at  the  time  of 
liliui^  the  hill,*  «tr  it"  tlu-re  he  rvidrnci-  t(»  ^h.>\\•  that  the  settle- 
ment was  made  in  e(>ntem|tlation  of  I'lituri'  dchts,  or  in  furthcr- 
anee  of  a  meditated  desi:,rn  of  future  fraud,  althouirh  the  settler 
may  not  liavc  been  indehted  at  the  time,'  the  deed  will  be  set 
aside.'  If  a  settlement  is  set  aside  as  fraudulent  a^xainst  ered- 
itors  whose  debts  accrued  before  its  execution,  8ubse(iucnt 
creditors  are  entitled  to  participate:*  but  if  antecedent  cred- 
itors can  not  make  out  a  case  for  setting  it  aside,  subsequent 
creditors  can  not  imjieach  the  settlement  as  fraudulent  by 
reason  of  the  prior  indebtment.' 

In  Holmes  v.  Penni'v  "  the  conveyance  by  a  man  of  his 
proj>erty  to  trustees  for  valuable  consideration  upon  trust  to 
apjily  it  at  their  discretion  in  tlie  maintenance  of  himself,  his 
wife  and  children,  or  any  of  them,  in  such  a  manner  as  they 
should  think  lit,  was  held  valid  against  subsequent  creditors, 


Ilolmcfl  V.  Tcnnoy.  3  K.  »t  J.  Ofi ;  Barl- 
iiifj  r.  lUshoji,  'i'.t  Bcav.  417;  Thompson 
r.  Webster,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  6:il. 

'  Joiikyn  I'.  Viiutjhiiii,  8  Drew.  410. 
Comp.  llulmc^  f.  rerincy,  -i  K.  it  J. 
90.  See  Graham  v.  U'Kcefe,  16  Ir. 
Ch,  1. 

'  Slileman  v.  Aslxlown.  2  Atk.  481  ; 
iriohard.'^on  f,  Sirmilwooil.  Jac.  552; 
llolh.way  V.  Millard,  1  Ma.M.  414; 
I'arlini;  r.  Bishop,  2'.»  Ik-av.  417;  Mur- 
phy f.  Abruhum,  15  Ir.  Ch.  371 ;  Gra- 


ham  r.   O'Keefe,  IG  Ir.  Cli.  1  ;  Savage 
V.  Murpliy,  7  TilF.  (.\mer.)  508. 

'  See  \VhUtiiiy;ton  v.  Jennings,  6  Sim. 
490. 

*  Riciiardson  t*.  Smallwood,  Jac.  552  ; 
Ede  V.  Knowl.'s.  2  Y.  .t  V.  C.  C.  172  ; 
B«irt«ii  I'.  \'iinlii\  tiuivscii,  11  Ila.   1S2. 

»Sco  ll.dlowav  f." Millard,  1  Madd. 
419;  Walker  r."  Burrows,  I  Atk.  y4; 
Edc  V.  Knowles.  2  Y.  ik  C.  C.  C.  172, 
17H.     (.'omp.  .^lory's  Eq.  Jur.  BC3. 

•  3  K.  J;  J.  HU. 


Accounts  wliich  have  Wen  niprpcd  in  jiidtrnu'nt^  may  Ik-  ofTcred  in 
evidence  to  hIidw  an  indebteilno.^  prior  to  tlie  niakinir  of  tin- dei'il.  Hind.s 
r.  Lonf^worlli.  11  Wheat.  lUS);  Harlan  r.  Barney  fl  Dana,  21'.». 

A  contin;,'t  lit  debt  likely  to  liecome  al)Soliitc,  and  whiclj  afterwunU 
does  Ix-conic  absolute,  i.s  sullicient.  McLaiighliu  r.  Hank  of  Potomac,  7 
How.  220. 

A  debt  bv  a  n<ite  \shi(li  is  afterwards  n-newed,  <ontinue.H  to  be  the 
Bimo  debt.  .McLaughlin  r.  Bank  of  I'otoniai  ,  7  How.  'J20  ;  Eij^lelxTger 
r.  Kibler,  1  HIIPh  Cli.  li:{. 

Sulnvquent  debts  cnntrarted  in  exoneration  of  pn-eedinj?  ones  arc 
notliinj;  more  tlinn  n  continuance  of  antec-edent  indebtedness.  Brown  t. 
McDonabl,  1  Hill's  Ch.  2D7 ;  Savage  r.  Murphy,  »4  N.  Y.  rm. 


FRAUD   UPON    TlllKI)    TAKTIKS.  -(K) 

and  also  ar^.iinst  a  person  mIio  was  a  creditor  at  tlio  time  of 
making  the  conveyance,  and  whose  debt  was  conceidcd  liy  tin; 
settler  from  tlic  purchaser.     It  was  also  laid  down'  hy  Wuou. 
1j.  .1,,  that  a  vohuitary  settlement  to  the  .^.ime  effect  would   Iv 
upheld  against  subsequent  creditors. 

In  order  to  make  a  voluntary  settlement  or  conveyance 
void  as  against  creditors,  whether  cxistini;  or  subsequent,  it  is 
indispensable  that  it  should  transfer  ]iro})erty  Nfliich  wouM  be 
liable  to  be  taken  in  execution  for  the  ])ayment  of  debts.' * 
Under  the  old  law  a  voluntary  settlement  of  stock  or  of 
choses  in  action,  or  of  copyholds,  or  of  any  other  property 
not  liable  to  execution  was  not  within  the  statute  of  Elizabeth  :^ 
but  copyholds,  bonds,  money,  stock,  &c.,  etc.,  beini^  under  1 
Vict.  c.  100  seizable  in  execution,  arc  now  within  the  statute.* 

A  strong  presumption  of  fraud  against  creditors  arises, 
where  after  a  bill  of  sale  of  chattel  property,  purporting  on 
its  face  to  take  effect  immediately,  the  vendor  or  settler  is 
after  its  execution  permitted  to  remain  in  possession  of  the 
property."  t     It  is  otherwise,  however,  if  his  continuance  in 

'  3  K.  <fe  J.   100.  *  Norcutt  v.  Dodd,  Cr.   <fe  Ph.  100; 

"  Sco  Dundas  v.  Dntons,  1  Vc3.  Jr.  Barrack  v.   M'Cullock,  3  K.  &  J.  110; 

196;  Caillaiul   ?'.   Estwick,  Anst.  381;  Frcncli  v.  French,  G  I).   M.  «t  G.  ;•:); 

Nantes   v.    C'oriock,  9  Yes.   1S8,  189;  Wardt-n  z».  Jones,  2  D.  <t  J.  76 ;  Stokoc 

Kider  f.  Kiililer,  10  Ves.  3Cy  ;  Guy  v.  v.  Cowen,  29  Bcav.  C37. 

Pearkes,  IS  Ves.  196.  •  Twyne's  Case,  3  Co.  Rep.  81;  Ed' 

'  lb  ;     llorn    v.    Horn,    Amb.    79  ;  wards  v.  llarben,  2  T.  II.  587. 
Cochrane  v.  Chambers,  ib.  n.  Norcutt ; 
V.  Dodd,  Cr.  <fc  Ph.  lUO. 


*  Bean  V.  Sniitli,  2  ;j[ason,  2.j2;  Poatrue  r.  Boycc.  6  J.  J.  Maisli.  70; 
Bayard  r.  Iloirman,  5  Johns.  Cli.  450;  Planters'  Bank  v.  Henderson.  4 
Humph.  75  ;  "Winebrenner  r.  Wersigcr,  3  Mon.  32 ;  Legro  r.  Lord,  1  Fairf. 
IGl  ;  Foster  r.  M'Gregor,  11  Vt.  595;  Dearman  t.  Dearman,  4  Ala.  521; 
How  r.  Wayman,  12  3Io.  1G9;  Lishey  v.  Chiyton.  6  Bush,  515. 

If  a  debtor  without  any  secret  trust  or  intentional  fraud  invests  his 
money  in  improvements  upon  tlie  real  estate  of  another,  his  creditors  can 
not  treat  such  third  party,  or  the  land  as  liable  to  them.  Ewing  r. 
Cantrels,  1  Meigs.  304. 

t  Concurrent  possession  by  grantor  and  grantee  is  colorable.      The 


210  riJAi  I)  I  I'ON  Tim:i»  pautiks. 

possession  is  c.msi.sti'Mt  with  the  iiaturi!  of  the  tnuisaction,  as 
where  a  hill  ot'  sale  is  not  ahsohite  on  its  lace  or  in  its  form, 
but  only  eoiulitional,  so  tliat  i»os>es.sion  is  nut  to  he  <,Mven  until 
the  condition  has  been  performed.^*  In  Edwards  v.  llur- 
ben't  the  eourt  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  ])osscssion  of  goods 
sold  under  an  altsohite  hill  of  sah'  is  comlu-ive  evidence  of 
fraud;  hut  the  tendenc}'  of  later  decisions  has  been  to  qualify 
that  doctrine,  and  the  wei^dit  of  authority  is  in  favor  of  the 
modilied  doctrine  that  possession  by  the  vendor  or  settler 
aflbrds  only  a  badge  or  j)?'ima  facie  presumption  of  fraud, 
which  may  he  rebutted  by  explanation,  showing  the  trans- 
action to  be  fair  and  honest,  and  giving  a  reasonaldo  ground 
for  the  retention  of  possession.     The  question  as  to  fraud  in 

'  Edwards   i-.    Ilarln'O,  2  T.  R.  r.sV ;  s.-o  17  <k  18  Vict  c.  ilC>.  Rctjistration  of 

Cadoijan  i'.  Konnctt,  (.'owj>   I'.H  ;  Martin-  iJills  of  Sales   Act,  1    Sinitli's  L.  C.  14: 

dal.-  f.   Houtli.  :{  B.  tt   Ad.  4'.ts,  5<»r»;  Addison  on  Contructs,  147-150. 
Miiwhall  V.  Lloyd,  2  IL  <t  W.  450;  but  »  2  T.  U.  587. 


possession  must  he  exclusive.  Boyd  t.  Dunlap,  1  Johns.  Ch.  478;  Raxter 
r.  Gaines,  4  lien  it  M.  151 ;  Hall  r.  Parsons,  17  Vt.  271  ;  Willis  r.  "Warner, 
19  Vt.  609 ;  StacUler  r.  Wood,  24  Te.\.  G22. 

Joint  possession  l)y  husband  and  wile  is  not  framlulent.  Danforth  r. 
Wood,  11  Pai^e,  9. 

A8Sumi)tion  of  ])Ossession  after  the  death  of  the  {.grantor  is  not  sutli- 
cicnt.     Shields  v.  Anderson,  3  Leigh,  729. 

A  niort;,'agee  who  takes  a  release  of  an  equity  of  redi  mption,  thereby 
eslingui.shcs  his  niortji;age,  and,  if  the  release  is  frau'.lulent,  his  rij,'ht  h 
gone  Gla.'-scock  c.  Batton,  0  Rami.  78;  Claybom  v.  Hill,  1  Wa.sh.  (Va.) 
177;  coritrfi,  Irish  r.  Morse,  10  Vt.  Hi ;  Tou!c  r.  Hoit,  14  N.  H.  01. 

•  Letcher  r.  Norton,  4  Seam.  575;  U.  S.  r.  Hoe,  3  C'ranch,  73;  Bank 
of  Georj,Ma  r.  Hi^Ljinbottoni.  9  Pet.  148 ;  Gist  r.  Prossley,  2  Hill's  Ch. 
318;  Bri;,';,'8  r.  Parkinan,  2  Met.  258;  Planters'  &  Merchants'  Hank  r. 
Willis,  5  Ala.  770;  Leane  r.  Borland,  2  Shep.  77  ;  Ash  r.  Savage,  5  N.  H. 
545;  Maney  r.  Killough,  7  Yerg.  440. 

t  It  has  been  hiid  in  tin;  following  cases  that  the  retention  of  posses* 
pion  by  the  vendor  was  fraudulent  per  k.  Hamilton  f.  Uus.sell,  1  Craneli, 
310;  Phettiplaee  p.  Sayb^,  4  Ma^on,  312;  Fuller  p.  Sears,  5  Vt.  527; 
p\»n)8Worth  v.  Shepanl,  0  Vl.  521  ;  Mills  p.  Canip,  14  Cf.  219;  Kirtland  r. 
Sni»\v,  20  Ct.  23;  Doaek  r.  Brubackcr,  1  Nev.  218;  l!abl)  r.  Ch  In^(•n,  H"  8. 
iSc  R  419;  Young  c,  M'Clure,  2   W.  Jc  S.  147  ;  Jarvis  r.  Davis,  14  B.  Slon. 


FRAUD   I  TON    Tlllin)   PARTIES.  LMl 

such  cases  is  nut  an   inference  of  ];iu',  but  one  of  fact  fur  the 
jury.*  * 

'  Lady  Animl.ll   v.   I'liipp-!,  10  Vc-s.  80fi,   per   Timlal,    C.  J. ;    .MacihuKi   r. 

115;  Miirtitidalo   v.  Hootli,  3  \i.  A  A<1.  Swiiicy,  8  Ir.  C.  L.  T.i ;  Cooku   v.    Wul- 

408,  r.ori;  LaliiiKT  1-.  Biitsoii,  4  H.  A.  (J.  kt-r,  a    W.  R.  357;    1   biiiitli's  L.  C.  p. 

(■.5'2;  Liiuloii   v.  Sharp,  ti  M.  «fe  G.  8'J5,  13. 


53;  Uunillcy  v  Wf!)l),  :]  J.  J.  Marsh.  043;  Brcmmcl  v.  Stockton,  8  Dana, 
134;  Chcnery  v.  Palmer,  G  Cul.  119;  GiI)son  r.  Love,  4  Fla.  217;  Sanders 
r.  Popoon,  4  Fla.4(>"> ;  IJowman  v.  IIcrr^nf,^4  Ilarrin^'.  45H  ;  Jorda  r.  Lewis, 
1  La.  An.  5!);  Cohurii  r.  Pickerinir,  3  N.  U.  41  "i ;  Clatliiii  r.  Rosenberg.  42 
Mo.  439;  Ketelium  r.  Watson,  24  111.  o91. 

*  It  has  been  held  in  the  followinj;  cases  that  the  retention  of  pos-cs- 
sion  by  the  vendor  is  only  presiuuptive  evidence  of  fraud.  "Warner  v. 
Norton,  20  How.  448  ;  Ilorabeek  r.  Vanmetre,  9  Ohio,  1.j3  ;  Collins  v. 
Iklyere,  10  Ohio,  547;  Reed  r.  Jewett,  5  Greenl.  90;  Ulnicr  v.  Hills,  8 
Grccnl.  320;  I'.rooks  v.  Powers,  15  Mass.  244;  Bartlett  r.  Williai::s,  1 
Pick.  288;  Hanford  r.  xirtehor,  4  Hill,  271  ;  Thompson  v.  Blandiard,  4  X. 
Y.  303;  Terry  r.  Celcher,  1  Bailey,  508;  Davis  r.  Tunier,  4  Gratt.  422; 
Forkner  v.  Stuart,  G  Gratt.  197;  Callen  r.  Thonipsou,  3  Yerg.  475;  Manly 
r.  Ki'ilough,  7  Ycr-;.  440;  Viek  v.  Ki'ys,  2  Hayw.  120;  Foley  v.  Kniglit, 
4  Blackf.  420;  Watson  v.  Williams,  4  Blackf.  20;  Miller  t.  Pancoast, 
4  N.  Y.  303;  Beers  v.  Dawsou,  8  Geo.  550;  Kuykcndall  r.  McDonald, 
15  Mo.  410;  Bi-jant  v.  Kelton,  1  Tex.  415;  Morgan  t.  Republic,  2  Tex. 
273;  Livingston  v.  Littell.  15  Wis.  221;  Bullis  v.  Borden.  21  Wis.  130; 
Ilobbs  V.  Bibb,  2  Stew.  54-330  ;  Mayer  v.  Clark,  40  Ala.  259  ;  Rankin  v. 
HoUoway,  3  Smed.  &  Mar.  014 ;  Conistock  v.  Rayford,  12  Smed.  &  Mar. 
309 ;  Frield  r.  Simco,  2  Eng.  209. 

After  a  sale  under  an  execution  when  a  stranger  is  a  purchaser,  the 
property  may  be  left  in  the  possession  of  the  vendor.  Floytl  i\  Goodwin, 
8  Yerg.  484;  Andrews  v.  Brooks,  11  Ala.  953;  Abney  v.  Kingsland,  10 
Ala.  355;  Simerson  v.  Bank  of  Decatur,  12  Ala.  205;  Garland  v.  Cham- 
bers, 11  Smed.  &  Mar.  337  ;  Coleman  v.  Uank  of  Hamburg,  2  Strobh.  Eq. 
285. 

Possession  for  a  long  time  after  a  sale  under  an  execution  is  fraudulent. 
Taylor  v.  :\Iills,  2  Edw.  Ch.  318 ;  Stover  r.  Farmers'  &  .^lerehant.-,'  Bank,  8 
Smed.  &  ^Mar.  305. 

Want  of  possession  is  not  presumptive  of  fraud  if,  from  the  circum- 
ttances  of  the  property,  possession  can  not  be  given.  A  familiar  example 
of  this  doctrine  is  in  the  case  of  a  sale  of  a  ship  or  goods  at  sea  where 
possession  is  dispensed  with  on  the  plain  ground  of  its  impossil)ility;  and 
it  is  sutlicicnt  if  the  vendee  takes  possession  of  the  property  within  a 
reasonable  time  after  its  arrival  in  port.  Conrad  v.  Atlantic  Fire  Ins.  Co., 
1  Pet.  380 ;  Portland  Bank  v.  Stacey,  4  Mass.  001 ;  Putnam  v.  Dutch,  8 
Mass.  287 ;  Joy  v.  Scars,  9  Pick.  4. 


V 


212  TKAi  I)  I  r«>N    III  11! I)  I'AirriKS. 

Transactions  wliicli  have  for  tluir  olijcct  tlic  delcatinf]^  or 
defrnudinuj  of  crctlitoi-s  niiit't  bi;  carefully  «listini^uislic<l  from 
Cii^cA  wlicre  a  sjilo,  or  assi^nmciit,  or  utluT  cnnvcvance  merely 
amounts  to  i^iving  a  i>reference  to  one  creditor,  or  to  ono  set 
of  creditors,  over  anotlier,  or  where  the  assi«;nme:'.t  or  convey- 
ance is  made  for  tlie  henctit  of  all  crc<lit'>rs.  The  law  tolerates 
assiijnments  giving  one  creditor  a  preference  over  anotlier.  * 
Tlie  fact  that  an  assignment  may  have  been  expressly  made 
with  the  intent  to  defeat  the  claim  of  a  particular  creditor  is 
of  no  consequence  either  at  common  law  or  under  the  statute 
of  Elizabeth,  if  the  consideration  be  adetpiate.*  Under  the 
bankrupt  law,  however,  the  transfer  by  a  man  of  the  whole,  or 
the  bulk,  nr  even  a  jiart  of  his  property  to  a  creditor  in  con- 
sideration of  an  antecedent  debt  is  fraudulent,  if  made  volun- 
tarily and  in  contemplation  of  baukru[)tcy.' 

'  Ilolbird  f.  Amlorpon,  6  T.  R. '2:'.5 ;  WolvcrhnniptnnandStnfTordshireBftnk- 

Kstwick   t'.    fai  laud.    T)    T.     11     4'JO;  in;?  Co.  r.  Mnrstnn,  7  IF.  it  N.  1 18.    But 

(;r<ca»    v.    C<i(.kL',    U   lift.   <fc   IJe.  2:>r> ;  see  15ott  v.  Siiiitli,  'Jl  Doav.  Ml. 

Pi.k>lock   t>.    LvstcT,  3  il.  it   S.  :i71;  "Smith    v.    Caunun,  U   K.  A   B.  35, 

Wodd  r.  Dixie.'?  (i- B.   8'.t2 ;  Hal.-  r.  Bitth-ston    t>.   Cooke,  tj  E.   tt   B.  298; 

tialoon    Omnibus    Co.,   4    Drew.    Ti'.ii  ;  Youn;^  «;.  Fletcl\er,  3  II.  »k  C.  732,  wi/ru. 


*  Tompkins  r.  "Wliceler,  10  Pet.  103 ;  M.irbury  v.  Brooks,  7  Wlairt. 
550;  B.  c.  11  Wheat.  78;  ^lurray  v.  Rij.'.irs,  l.j  Johns.  571;  Greon  f.  Tan- 
mr.  K  Met.  411  ;  Skipwith  r.  Cunningham,  8  Leigh,  271 ;  U.  8.  Bank  r. 
Ilatli,  4  n.  Mon.  4i:J. 

An  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors  exacting  releases  is  valid. 
Bra-sluar  r.  We.st,  7  Pet.  CitS;  Lippincott  r.  Barker,  3  Binney,  174;  Pier- 
pont  r.  Graham,  4  Wanh.  (Penn.)  2:J3 ;  Ilalsey  r,  Whitney,  4  Miueon,  230; 
Niolen  r.  Doughiss,  2  Hill's  Ch.  44;J;  Ashunt  r.  Martin,  9  Port.  5(50;  Vose 
r.  Iloleoml).  :J1  .Mi-.  407  ;*  Ileydoek  r.  Stanhope,  1  ("iirt.  471;  Pierce  r. 
Jackson.  1  H.  I.  'i'>  \  Dockray  r.  I)o<  kray,  3  H.  I.  547;  Rankin  r.  Lodor, 
21  .\la.  abO;  .McCall  r.  Hinkiey.  4  Gill,  128;  Kettlcwell  r.  Stewart,  8  Gill, 
472;  eontra,  Wakeman  t.  Grover,  4  Paige,  28;  8.  c.  11  Wend.  187 ;  Amos 
r.  Blunt,  5  Paige,  113  ;  Ingraham  r.  Wheeler,  0  Ct.  277  ;  Atkinson  r,  Jor- 
din,  5  Ohio,  2'j:{;  Ilyslop  r.  (lark,  14  Johns.  458  ;  Austin  r.  Clark,  20 
Johii.s.  412;  Haven  r.  Hiclrird-on,  5  N.  II.  li:J;  The  Watchman,  Ware, 
2:52;  Conkling  r  Carnon,  11  111.  50ij ;  Xcabit  c.  Digby,  lli  III.  ya7;  Miller 
V.  Couklin,  17  Geo.  430. 


FiiAii)  iroN  Tiiii;i)  i'AKTn:s.  213 

An  assi^^Mimt'iit  by  :i  nian  of  his  i)n»i)C'rty  for  the  hoiicfit  of 
his  creditors  is  valid,  and  will  bo  HUi)i)orted,  j.rcjvided  the 
deed  be  hond  Ji>Ic,  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  creditors,  and  tliere 
be  an  unconditional  surrender  by  the  debtor  of  all  his  ju-o))- 
crty  and  eirect,^.*  Dut  a  deed  which  the  debtor  has  a  power 
to  revoke,  and  attempts  to  use  as  a  shiehl  a^'ainst  his  creditors, 
is' fraudulent  and  void  against  creditors  who  are  affected  by 
the  deed,  notwithstanding  the  deed  upon  the  face  of  it  pur- 
ports to  be  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  creditors.'^  So  also  is  an 
instrument  void  as  against  creditors,  if  there  is  any  provision 
contained  in  it  which  shows  that  the  debtor,  at  the  time  of  its 
execution,  intended  to  prevent  an  immediate  application  of 
his  property  in  favor  of  his  creditors.'* 

•Smith  r.  Hurst,  lOIIa.  30;   Riclics  *  Brigham    v.    Tillinghast,   3  Kern, 

f.  Evans  0  C.  tfc  V.  CJl.  (Amer.j,  215. 

*  Smith  V.  Hurst,  Hi  Ha.  CO. 


*  The  fact  that  the  mortgagor  is  allowed  to  sell  the  mortgaged  goods 
at  retail  after  the  execution  of  the  mortgage,  is  merely  a  badge  of  fraud. 
Frost  V.  Warren,  42  N.  Y.  204 ;  Summer.^  v.  Roos,  42  :Mi.ss.  749. 

A  mortgage  which  contains  a  stipulation  reserving  to  the  mortgagor 
the  power  to  scUthc  mortgaged  property  for  his  own  benefit,  is  fraudu- 
lent. Edzell  V.  Hart,  9  N.  Y.  21;  Lang  tJ.  Lee,  3  Rand.  410;  Collins  r. 
^NIcElroy,  IG  Ohio,  547;  Shcppard  v.  Tuq^n,  3  Gratt.  373;  Addington  v. 
Etheridgc,  12  Gratt.  436;  Brooks  v.  AVimcr,  20  Mo.  503;  Walter  v. 
Wimer,  24  Mo.  63;  Freeman  v.  Rauson,  5  Ohio  St.  R.  1  ;  Ilarman  v.  Abbey, 
7  Ohio  St.  R.  218;  Chophard  ».  Bayard,  4  3Iinn.  533;  Place  r.  Lixugwortli, 
13  Wis.  029;  Armstrong  ».  Tuttle,  34  Mo,  432;   Bamet  c.  Fergus,  51  111. 

352. 

When  there  is  an  agreement  out  of  the  mortgage  that  the  mortgagor 
shall  continue  in  possession,  and  buy  and  sell  as  usual,  the  mortgage  is 
fraudulent.  Gardner  r.  iMcEwen.  19  X.  Y.  123  ;  Russell  t.  Wines,  37  N.  Y. 
591 ;  Ward  v.  Lowry,  17  Wend.  432 ;  Delaware  v.  Ensign,  21  Barb.  35. 

An  agreement  that  the  mortgagor  shall  continue  in  possession  and  sell 
the  mortgaged  property,  and  apply  the  proceeds  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
debt  which  the  mortgage  is  given  to  secure,  is  not  fraudulent.  Conkling 
V.  Shelley,  28  N.  Y.  3G0;  Ford  v.  Williams,  24  X.  Y.  359;  Miller  r.  Lock- 
wood,  32  N.  Y.  293;  Saunders  r.  Turbcville,  2  Humph.  272;  Abbott  r. 
Goodwin,  20  Me  408;  Contra  Ticknor  v.  Wisnall,  9  Ala.  3'»5. 


214  rRATl)    ITdN   TIIIIM)    TAiniKS. 

Tlu'  s;um'  jxilicy  ct"  ntlurdiiii;  |>nitc(f i(»ii  to  tlio  riixlits  of 
creditors  pervades  the  provisions  of  tlic  statute  3  i*^-  1  Will.  iS: 
M.  c.  14,  respectini^  fraudulent  devises  in  fraud  of  cri-ditors  ;* 
but  the  statute  does  n(»t  reacli  conveyances,  whetlier  V(»hintary 
or  not,  whicli  tlie  dehtor  may  make  in  liis  lifetime.'  A  debtor 
may  alienate  the  land  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  debts, 
or  he  may  by  will  make  it  e(|uitable  assets,  or  he  may  devise 
it  for  the  ]>ayment  of  a  jiarticular  debt  on  sini]>le  eontraet,  and 
so  withdraw  it  from  specialty  creditors  altoL^cther.  The  cred- 
itors may,  by  takinic  proccedinc^s,  obtain  ])ayment  out  of  the 
descended  (»r  (levisL'<l  real  estates  in  the  liands  of  the  heir  or 
devisee;  but  if  such  ])roceedinijs  are  not  taken,  the  heir  or 
devisee  may  alienate,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  alienee,  whether 
upon  a  common  purchase  or  on  a  settlement,  even  with  notice 
that  there  arc  debts  unpaid,  the  land  is  not  liable,  although 
the  heir  reinaing  personally  liable  to  the  extent  of  the  value  of 
the  land  alienated.'  The  alienee,  however,  may  be  restrained 
at  the  suit  of  creditors  from  partin<j:  with  the  money.* 

Another  case  of  fraud  ni)on  creditors  is  where  upon  a  com- 
position by  a  debtor  with  his  creditors,  particular  creditors,  by 
means  of  secret  baru^ains,  secure  to  themselves  undue  advan- 
tages over  the  rest  of  the  creditors.  The  ])rinciple  of  all 
comi»osition  deeds  being  that  the  debtor  .<hall  make  a  true 
representation  of  his  a.ssets,  and  that  the  creditors  shall  stand 
upon  an  ecpial  footing  and  observe  good  faith  towards  each 
other,  any  secret  arrangements  between  the  debtor  and  a  ]iar- 
ticular  creditor,  wherelty  he  is  jdaced  in  a  more  favored 
]>osition   than   the   rest  of  the  creditors,  is   a  fraud   upon  the 

•  Sco  Jeremy  on  Kq.  Jnr.  bk.  n.  pt.  123;  DilkoB  i-.  Uroadmcnd.  2  D.  F.  A  J. 
2,  c.  :'.,  ?  -1  iip.ilS,  -Ih'..  S.T  alxo  (Viiipo  rn'.d.  Hut  Hfo  I'iiiiiii  i'.  IiimiU,  1  .Muc.  «t 
v.  Crc-^HW.ll.  i..  K.  2  Cli.  A\>\>.  I  12.  U.  i  I'.'. 

»  1  F..nl..  Kq.  b.  1.  r.  1.  ^  1 1  n  *  Grocn  v.  Lowes,  8  Bro.  C.  C.  217. 

•  Bpnckinnii  v.  Tinilin-ll,  H  Sim.  2.'i3; 
Riclmrd»on    r.    llorUni,    7    Ik-uv.    112, 


FRAUD  UPON  Tiii:ii)  i'aktii:h.  'Jir» 

otliors.' *  III  niddeni  times,  the  saiiu;  I'lilc  liiis  Ix'cii  acted  <ni 
at  lau-;^ 

Viiv  the  like  reasons,  any  ai^reeiiieiit  made  l)y  an  infiolvent 
delitor  with  liis  assignee,  by  uhich  tlie  estate  of  tlie  insolvent 
is  to  1)C  held  in  trust  hy  the  assignee  to  secure  certain  hcnefits 
for  himself  and  his  family,  such  as  to  pay  certain  annuities  to 
himself  and  his  uife  out  of  tlie  rents  or  proceeds  of  the  prop- 
erty assigned,  and  to  ii]>ply  the  surjilus  to  the  extinction  of 
deht  due  to  the  assignee,  is  void  as  being  a  contrivance  in 
fraud  of  creditors.^ 

A  creditor,  however,  holding  a  security  for  his  ovm  debt, 
may  stipuhite  to  have  the  benefit  of  it  in  addition  to  the 
amount  of  the  composition  offered  by  a  debtor  to  his  creditors, 
l)ut  he  must  liold  liimself  entirely  aloof  from  the  other  cred- 
itors, or  distinctly  communicate  with  them  on  the  subject,  if 
he  at  all  acts  in  common  with  them.* 

FRAUD  UPON  MARRIAGE  ARTICLES. 

Another  class  of  frauds  upon  third  parties,  which  will  be 
relieved  against  in  equity,  is  Avhere  persons  after  doing  acts 

'  Jackniftii  V.   Mitclicll,  13  Vcs.  581 ;  Barker,  1  L.  R.  Eq.  139.    Comp.  Lee  v. 

Sadler  v.  Jnckson,  15  Vcs.  52;  Coleman  Lockliart,  3  M.  it  V.  315. 

V.  Waller.  3  V.  tt  J.  215 ;  Cullingworth  •'  Cocksliott  v.  Bennett.  2  T.  R.  T63  ; 

V.  Lloj-d,  2  Beav.  385,  and   cases  cited  Kni:;;ht  v.  Hunt.  5  BinLf.  432  ;   Lewis  i". 

395  n'.;    Pendleburv  r.  Walker,  4  Y.  <fc  Jones,    4    B.    <fc    C.    500;    llowdcn    v. 

C.  434;   Kx-parlc  Oliver,  4  Dej;.  &  Sni.  IJaiich.  11  A.  tt  E.  1033. 

302;    Mare   v.    landlord,  1  GitF.   288;  MlcNeill  t>.  Cabill,  2  Bligh,  228. 

Slare  V.  Warner,  3  Gitf.   100;   Wood  v.  *  Cullingworth  «.  Lloyd,  2  Beav.  385. 


*  1  Smith  V.  Stone,  4  G.  &  J.  310  ;  Daughty  r.  Savnge,  28  Ct.  146  ;  Case 
r.  Garrisli,  15  Pick.  49;  Ramsdcll  r.  Edgarton,  8  Met.  227;  Lntlirop  r. 
King,  8  Cusli.  382 ;  Brock  r.  Cole,  4  Sandf.  79;  CaiToU  r.  Shields,  4  E.  D. 
Smith  466 ;  Iliggins  r.  ^Maj-er,  10  How.  Pr.  363 ;  Lawrence  v.  Clark,  36  X. 
Y.  128;  Pinnco  v.  Iliggins,  13  Abb.  Pr.  334;  Beach  v.  Ollcndorf,  1  Hilt. 
41 ;  Smith  r.  Owens,  21  Cal.  11  ;  Bartleman  v.  Douglass,  1  Cranch's  C.  C.  450. 

Tiie  rule  has  no  application  to  a  case  where  each  creditor  acts  not  only 
for  himself  but  in  opposition  to  every  other  creditor,  all  equally  relying 
upon  their  vigilance  to  obtain  priority.     Clark  r.  "White,  12  Pot.  178. 

A   concealment  of  a  portion  of  his  assets  by  the  debtor  will  make 


'JIG  n:.\ri)  ri-oN  Tim:i>  iv\i:tii:s. 

re(jiiiiT(l  ti»  lie  (loiic  oii  a  tn-afy  of  iiiarri:iL'c,  rciidiT  tlutse  actrt 
iinavailin!X  l)v  intciiiii:  into  other  secivt  a^rivciiu'iits,  or  doro- 
pUe  IVtMii  tliosi«  ju'ts  or  otlifrwise  coiiiniit  a  lV:iu<l  iiimii  tlie 
relatives  or  IViends  of  one  of  tlio  contracting  j>arties;'  as  wlicru 
a  j>arent  declines  to  consent  to  a  inarria<;(«  on  account  of  the 
intended  husUan*!  ln-ini;  in  delit,  and  tin-  lirotlicr  of  the  latter 
gives  a  bond  fi-r  the  dcht  to  jirocure  .^nch  conM-nt,  and  the 
intended  husband  then  j,'ives  a  eounter-l»ond  to  his  brother  io 
indemnify  him  against  the  first  bond."''  So,  also,  where  a 
creditor  of  the  intended  husband  concealed  liis  own  debt  and 
misrepresented  to  the  lady's  father  the  amount  of  the  debts  of 
the  intended  Inisband,  the  transaction  was  treated  as  a  fraud 
u])on  the  marria<;e,  and  the  creditor  was  restrained  from 
enlbrcinij^  his  debt  at  law  against  the  liusband  after  the  mar- 
riage.' So,  also,  where  a  brother  on  the  marriage  of  his  sister 
let  her  have  a  sum  of  money  }>rivately  that  her  fortune  might 
appear  to  be  as  much  as  was  insisted  on  by  the  other  side,  and 
the  sister  gave  a  bond  to  the  brother  to  repay  it,  the  bond 
was  set  aside.*  So,  also,  where  the  money  due  by  an  intended 
husband  npon  a  mortgage  was  represented  by  the  mortgagee 
t<j  the  relations  of  the  wife  to  be  niurli  less  than  was  really 
due,  he  was  not  allowed  to  recover  mc»re  tlian  he  had  re]>re- 
scnted  the  debt  to  amount  to."^ 

Another  case  of  fraud  u])on  marriage  articles  is  where  a 
father,  w1m»  had,  on  tlu-  marriage  of  his  daughter,  covt-nanted 
that  he  wouhl  njiou  liis  iKath  leave  her  certain  tcmiMcnts,  and 
would   als<t   by  his  will   give  and  leave  her  a  full   and  e(|ual 

'  IVyton  r.  nin<!\vcll,  1  Vrrn.  210.  niS.      Sec    D'An)inc    v.    D'.Ml.ino.    in 

'  Ueclmnn  v.   Ittthiian.    1  Vcrn.  ai8;  Vi-h.  121 ;  Morris  r.  CliirkKon,  1  J.  it  W. 

Turtoii  V.  iW'nson.  1  1'.  Wiim.  IIm;  ;  Scolt  107. 

r.  Scolt.  1  Cox,  liOO;   I'uliiier  i'.  Niiivc,  *  (Jnlcf.  Ltiulo,  1  Vcrn.  478;  I.jiin]co 

11  Vc«.  Ifirt.  ».  lianinan,  2  Vcrii.  AW. 
•Ntvillo  w.  WilkiiiMm,  1    IJro,  C.  C.  *  Uurretl  r.  Wtllrt,  rrcc.  Ch.  131. 


Ilic  flcofl  void.     PliPttiplnrp  r.  Rnylcs,  4  Mason,  812;  RichnnlH  r.  Hunt,  0 
Yt.  201 ;  Jucktion  r.  lloilg.  s,  Jl  .Md.  tOy ;  Stving  r.  Gale,  2W  lud.  IbO. 


rUAUD    LTON   TllllLO   I'AUTlIiS.  217 

share  witli  lier  brotlier.s  and  listers  of  all  his  personal  estatoH, 
transfers  afterwards  during  his  life  a  very  larf^e  ])orti<>n  of  his 
jiersonal  property  to  his  son,  retaining  tlie  (li\  idcnds  for  liis 
<i\\n  lit'c.  *  Covenants  of  this  sort  do  ni»t  jiroliiliit  :i  parent 
from  niakiiiLT  any  disposition  of  his  ]»ro[)erty  dniint,^  liis  life- 
time anion^^  his  eliildrcn  more  favoraljle  to  one  than  another; 
hut  they  do  prohibit  a  man  from  doing  any  aets  whieh  are 
designed  to  defeat  or  defraud  tlie  covenant.  A  parent  may,  if 
he  pleases,  notwithstanding  the  covenant,  make  an  a1)sohite 
gift  to  a  chilli ;  hut  the  gift  must  he  an  absolute  and  unqualified 
one,  and  must  not  be  a  mere  reversionary  gift,  which  saves  the 
income  to  the  parent  during  his  own  life.^ 

FRAUD  UPON  THE  MARITAL  RIGHTS. 
Another  class  of  transactions  which  will  be  relieved  against 
as  being  in  fraud  of  the  marriage  contract  are  conveyances 
made  by  an  unmai-ricd  woman  of  her  property,  during  the 
treaty  of  marriage  without  the  knowledge  of  her  intended  hus- 
band, in  contravention  of  his  marital  rights,  or  in  disappoint- 
ment of  his  just  expectations.'*     Several  circumstances  appear 

'Jones   V.   JInitin,   3   Anst.    882,    5  darrl  i'.  Snow,  1  Riiss.  485 ;   EnHand  t/. 

Vcs.  205  n. ;  8  Bro.  1*.  C.  242.  See  Ran-  Downs,  2  Ik-av.  522  ;  Taylor  v.  I'wjih.  1 

dnll  f.  Willis.   5  Vcs.  201;   M'Xeill  v.  Ha.  G<)8;   Llewellin   v.   I'ol'liold,  KSni. 

Cahill,  2  Blit,^li,  228.    Conip.  iStocken  c.  it.    G.    37G;    Downcs  v.  Jiniiin^^s,    32 

Stocken,  4  M.  tfc  C.  95;  liell  v.  Clarke,  Beav.    290.     See   Loader   v.    Clark,    2 

25  Beav.  430.  Mnc.   ifc  G.  387;  Chambers  c.  Crabbc, 

'  Jones  V.  Martin,  3  Anst.  882,  5  Vcs.  34  Beav.  457.     A  secret  scttieinent  by 

265  n.  a    woman    of    her   j)roperty   dnrini;  a 

'Lance  v  Norman,  2  Cb.   Rep.  41;  trenly  of  inarri:i<^c,  is  not  necL~s;irily 

Lady  Strathmore   i'.  Bowes,  2  Bro.  C  void  at  law.    Dou  (/.  Kichards  v.  Lewis, 

C.  345,  2  Cox,  33,  1  Ves.  Jr.  22;  God-  11  C.  B.  1035. 


*  Tucker  r.  Andrews,  13  Me.  124;  Ramsay  v.  Joyce,  1  ^Ic3Iullan's  Ch. 
23G;  Black  v.  Jones,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  312;  Manes  r.  Diiraut.  2  Rich.  Eq. 
404 ;  Linker  r.  Smith,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  224. 

There  is  no  distinction  whether  tlie  conveyances  be  to  children  or  to  a 
atranjicr.     Ram^ay  c.  Joyce,  1  3IeMullan"s  Ch.  23(5. 

A  conveyance  made  by  a  woman  in  discharge  of  the  moral  duty  of 
providing  for  the  children  of  a  former  marriage,  is  not  considered  a  fraud 
upon  the  intended  husband,  although  it  is  concealed  from  him.  Green  »v 
Goodall,  1  Cold.  404. 

15 


218  rn\rn  i  ro\  tiiiim)  i'\i:tii:?^. 

to  have  l^^^n  tlimiixlit  niateriul  as  mirativiiii;  tlio  iinj)utetl 
fniud :  sjicli,  for  iM>tain.'i',  as  the  ii<»\cr(y  of  the  Iiushaiid,  the 
fact  that  lie  has  inatk'  no  settloinciit  on  the  witV",  thu  fuUilnient 
of  a  moral  ohlipitioii,  as  in  tlie  case  of  a  st'ttltMiiont  upon  the 
clilldri'n  of  a  furnicr  niaj'riaujo,  or  of  a  bond  i^ivcn  to  secure  a 
debt  contracted  for  a  vahiahlo  consideration,  or  the  fad  of  the 
ipioranec  of  the  husl)and  that  liis  wife  possessed  the  property.' 
Tliere  can  he  no  (h»uht  that  any  of  these  facts  wouhl  he  a  <;ood 
ground  for  insisting  that  there  shouhl  he  a  settlement,  but  it 
is  not  so  easy  to  understand  why  tlu^v  should  constitute  reasons 
for  practising  concealment  upon  him,  m-  for  treating  such  con- 
cealment as  immaterial.*  If  both  the  property  and  the  mode 
of  its  conveyanee,  pending  the  marriage  treaty,  were  concealed 
from  the  intended  husband,  there  still  is  or  may  be  a  fraud  prac- 
tised on  him.  It  is  true  that  the  non -acquisition  of  the  prop- 
erty is  no  disappointment,  but  still  his  legal  right  is  defeated, 
and  the  conveying  away  of  the  property  fur  the  benefit  of  a 
tliird  person,  or  the  vesting  and  continuance  of  a  sej)arate 
power  in  the  wife  over  property  which  ought  to  have  been  his, 
and  which  is,  without  his  consent  made  in(lei)endent  of  liis 
control,  is  a  sur[»rise  upon  him,  aiul  might,  if  i)reviously 
known,  have  induced  him  to  abstain  from  the  marriage.' 
The  mere  fact,  however,  of  concealment,  or  rather  the  non- 
communication to  him,  is  not  necessarily,  and  undi-r  all  cir- 
cumstances, eijuivalent  to  frau<l.  In  the  abst-nce  of  anv 
representation  as  to  specific  property,  there  is  no  im]'Iied  eon- 
tract  on  the  ])art  of  the  lady  that  her  ])roperty  shall  not  be  in 
any  way  diminisheil  before  the  marriage:  but  it  is  fur  the 
court  to  determine  in  each  case  whether  having  regard  to  the 

'limit  r.    MiiUIkwh.    1    Vcrn.   408;  r.:{3;  Lndv  Strntlimoro  i>.  nowcs,  2  Bro. 

Tnylor  v.  I'u-li,  1  llii.  I'.'w.  Sec- Downea  C,    C.    JtlVi.   «  liro.  1'.  C.  .127,  1   Vcs, 

9.  .Ienniti(;«.  '.i'S  IJiiiv.  '.".to.  Jr.  i»'i. 

*  Kntrlniul    V.    I»<>wiih,  '1   Hciiv.    r»22,  '  C'.irl  ton  «.  1-nrl  of  Dorsof,  2  Vcrn. 

02'J:  Tuylor  i.  I'u;,'li,   1    lla.  (Ins,  r,|:i;  17;    (Hi.l.lnril    r.    Miow.    1    l{nn«<.  4S!i; 

CbniiiJ«TH   V.    Crnlti.f.    ."11    Hciiv.     I.'i7.  Kn:,'l:iii>l  »•.  I)«)wn><,  2  Ucav.  022,  529; 

Sco  I'oulson  r.  Wtlliiijjlon.  2  1'.  Wiua.  Duwocb  v,  Jcmiiiiif-,  ^2  Ik-iiv.  2110. 


ruAi  1)  rroN  tiiii:i>  j-auties.  1!1'.> 

oondilion  of  the  ])arties  and  the  otlicr  attuinlaiit  circuiiiPtanccK, 
a  transaction  C(inii)lainc'(l  of  hy  the  liusband  sliould  be  treated 
as  fraudulent.' *  AVherc  the  liusband  has  so  conrlucted  hini- 
60lf  towards  tlic  iiitciidcd  ^\•il(•  that  she  cannot  without  din- 
Crraco  retire  fnun  tlie  iiian-inirc,  as  whei'c  he  had  induced  her 
to  cohabit  with  him  before  marriai^e,  a  settlement  made  by 
her  of  her  property  Avithout  his  knowledge,  will  not  be  treated 
as  In  fraud  of  his  marital  rights.^ 

The  equity  in  favor  of  the  liusband  docs  not  arise,  unless  it 
can  be  clearly  nuide  out  that  at  the  time  of  the  conveyance  of 
her  property  l)y  the  wife  there  was  an  engairement  of  mar- 
riage between  them.'  A  conveyance  to  be  fraudulent  must  be 
made  in  contemplation  of  a  particular  marriage.''  Xor  has  the 
liusband  any  c(juity  to  set  it  aside,  if  before  the  marriage  he 
has  notice  that  the  intended  wife  has  dealt  in  some  way  with 
her  property.  It  is  essential  to  tiie  apjilication  of  the  princi- 
ple that  the  husband  should,  up  to  the  moment  of  the  mar- 
riage, have  been  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  transaction.  If  he 
has  notice  before  the  marriage  that  the  lady  intended  to  make 
a  settlement  of  her  property,  and  nothing  took  place  to  justify 
a  belief  on  his  part,  that  at  the  time  of  the  marriage  no  such 
settlement  had  l)een  made,  he  has  no  equity  to  set  it  aside, 
although  he  may  not  be  proved  to  have  been  aware  of  any  set- 
tlement having  been  actually  made.  If  the  husband  has  notice 
that  the  property  has  been  in  some  way  dealt  with  and  makes 
no  inrpiiry,  he  is  bound  by  what  has  been  done.  It  is  enough 
that  he  had  notice  of  the  intended  settlement,  though  he  may 
not  have  been  aware  of  the  trusts.' 

'  De  Slannoville  v.  ("ompton.  1  V.  ife  *  EDjland  v.   Down*.  2   Beav.   522; 

B.  or)4 ;  yt.  (Jeoi-f^e  i-.  Wake,  1  M.  »i:  K.  Griirffs  i'.  Staplcc,  2  I've:.  &  8.  572. 

310;  Taylor  v.  Tu-li,  1  Ila.  (loS.  *  Mabcr  v.  Hobbs.  2  Y.  A  C.  317. 

'  Taylor  v.  Piigli,  1  II:i.  008.  =■  St.  George  v.  Wake,  1  M.  &  K.  CM; 


*  Caldwell  r.  Gilli.-J.  2  Port.  oiG;  Crump  r.  Dudley,  3  Call.  o07;  M'Clure 
c.  Miller,  1  Bailcv's  Ch.  107. 


220  ritAin  t  I'oN  Tim:n  pahtiks. 

Il'a  lioiul  bi'  ijivt'ii  I'V  a  woman  Ik  fore  mai*riatri>  to  prcure  a 
debt  contraotoil  for  vahiabli'  consick-ratioii,  tluri.'  is  iu»  Iraud  on 
thi'  liusbaml  tliontjli  it  bu  concealed  tVom  him.' 

Tlie  rijxht  of  the  Imsband  to  imj)cach  u  transaction,  as 
being  in  fraud  of  liis  marital  rights,  may  be  lost  by  accjui- 
cscence  or  drlay  :'  iicr  have  his  re])rescntatives  atti-r  liis  death 
any  equity  against  tlu*  wife,  if  lie  docs  not  before  his  death 
discover  the  fraud  upon  his  marital  rights.** 

MARRIAGE  AND  PLACE  BUOKAGE  BONDS. 

Another  class  of  transactions  which  are  relieved  against  as 
being  in  fraud  of  third  parties,  arc  contracts  or  agreements  to 
negotiate  a  marriage  between  two  j)arties  for  a  certain  compen- 
sation.*    In  some  early  cases,  Grisley  v.  Lother,'  and  a  case 

Fni'land  r.  Downs.  2  Beav.  5'J-J  ;  Griirgs  G.  382 ;  Downe3  v.  Jcniiinjjft,  32  Bcav. 

»'.  Staplcc,  2  1  »(•!».  <fc  S.  .')72,  \Vrii'Icy  V.  290.     See  infra. 

.swaiiisun,  ;{  I>o<r.  tfc  S.   ITiS.     See  Pri-  *  Grazt-brook    r.    rcrcival,    II   .lur. 

dc-anx  r.  Lonsdale.  1  1).  .1.  it  S.  433.  1103. 

'  Blanthut  v.  Foster,  2  Vis.  201.  *  See  "Worsley  v.  Do  Mattos,  1  Burr. 

'  De  Manniville  v.  Conijiton,  1  V.  it  4Ti"'.  ;>"•  Lord  Manstield. 
B.  354;  Loader  v.  Clarke.  2  Mac.    <k  *  Hob.  10, 


♦  A  conveyance  made  liy  a  man  in  contemplation  of  marriage,  for  the 
purpose  of  defraudinuc  his  wife,  is  void.  Petty  r.  Petty,  t  B.  Mori.  21.*; 
Swain  r.  Perine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  482;  Smith  r.  Smith,  2  Ilalst.  Ch.  515; 
Dearman  r.  Deannan.  10  Ind.  191 ;  Tate  r.  Tate,  1  Dcv.  ifc  Bat.  Eq.  22. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  i)Owcr  of  a  husband  to  dispose  absolutely 
of  his  projx-rty  durint,'  his  life  iiKlepiiuUntly  of  the  concurrence,  and  exon- 
erated from  any  claim  of  his  wife,  provided  the  tninsaction  Ls  not  men-ly 
Colorable  and  be  unattended  with  circumstances  indicative  of  fraud  upon 
the  rights  of  the  wife.  If  the  disposition  Vry  the  husband  Ix*  hnh'i  julr, 
and  no  right  i.s  reser\'ed  to  him,  though  made  to  defeat  tlie  right  of  the 
wife,  it  will  be  good  againnt  her.  Dunnock  r.  I)unnf)ek,  3  Mil.  Ch.  140; 
Cameron  r.  Cameron,  10  Smed.  «&  Mar.  o5)4  ;  Lightfoot  r,  Colgin,  5  Munf. 
42;  Stewart  r.  Stewart,  .■>  (  t.  HIT;  llolnus  i.  Holmes,  3  Paige,  :50;J. 

If  the  disposition  of  the  j)rop(rty  by  the  husband  is  a  mere  device  or 
contrivance  by  which,  not  parting  with  the  absolute  dominion  over  the 
pn»i)erty  during  his  life,  he  setks  at  his  death  to  deny  his  widow  the  hharc 
in  hi.s  estate  which  the  law  assigns  to  her,  it  will  be  inellectual  ugainst 
her.  IIay«  r.  Henr>-,  I  Md.  Ch.  :J:{7;  Tliayer  r.  Thayer,  It  Vt.  I<i7 ;  Kcy- 
Dolds  r.  Vance,  1  Ileisk.  34  1. 


FKAII)    I  I'ON    TlllUl)    I'AKTIi:S.  221 

t'itt'<l  ill  Hall  V.  I'ctltur/  a  inaiTiai^e  broka^^o  bond  was  bold 
j^oodatlaw;  but  tlit'se  cases  t-aiiiiot  be  considered  law.  The 
better  opinion  woiihl  seem  to  bo  that  a  iMan-iai,'e  bntkaL'o  bond 
is  void  at  law  upun  <,^-((iiiiils  n['  ]»u!»lic  ]»olicy.  In  dpiity  it,  has 
lonii;  been  settled  that  snch  bonds  will  be  relieved  ai^ainst,  as 
well  upon  gronnds  of  public  policy,  as  because  they  tend  to 
induce  the  exercise  of  undue  influcnoo  in  the  promotion  of 
niarriai:;es,  and  arc  a  fraud  on  the  families  of  those  who  are  so 
induced  to  nian-y  without  taking  the  advice  of  their  friends.^ 
Marriage  brokage  contracts  are  so  adverse  to  public  policy  as 
not  to  be  capable  of  confirmation;^  and  even  money  paid 
under  tliem  may  be  reclaimed.*  It  makes  no  difference  that 
the  marriage  is  between  pL-rsons  of  e(j[ual  rank,  age,  and  for- 
tune, for  the  contract  is  cipially  open  to  objection  upon 
general  principles  as  being  of  danger(jus  consequence.*  The 
principle  has  even  gone  further,  and  a  bond  given  for  assisting 
a  clandestine  marriage  has  been  set  aside,  though  given  volun- 
tarily after  the  marriage  and  without  any  previous  agreement 
for  the  purpose.' 

Upon  a  similar  ground,  if  a  parent  or  guardian,  or  any 
pei*son  nearly  connected  to  a  party,  privately  connive  with  a 
third  person,  and  agree  to  procure  a  marriage  between  such 
parties  in  consideration  of  a  certain  compensation,  or  agree 
upon  payment  of  a  certain  sum  to  consent  to  such  marriage, 
the  contract  is  utterly  void  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  a  bar- 


'  3  Lev.  412.  for  their  scrnces  to  a  limiteJ  cxteni. 

*  Hall  V.  Totter.  3  Lev.  412,  Show.  P.  Story's  Eq.  Jiir.  2()i>. 

C.  7C>;  Arundel  r.Trevillian,  1  Cli.  Rep.  'Cole  v.    Gibson,   1   Ves.    503,    600, 

47;  Law  v.  Law,  Ca.  t.  Talb.  14ii,  142;  507;    Roche    v.   O'Brien,  1  Ba.  <fe  Be. 

Cole  ".  Gibson,  1  Ves.  503;  Vauxiiall  358. 

Britlije  Co.  t/.  Spencer,  Jac.  C7 ;   Boyn-  *  Smith    v.  Brunin;^,    2   Vern.    392; 

ton  I'.  IluUbard,  7  Mass.  (Amor.),  112.  Goklsmith  v.  Brunin^,  1  Eq.  Ca.  Ab.  89. 

The  civil  law  does  not  seem  to  have  *  Hall  »•.  Potter,  3  Lev.  411,  I  Fonb. 

held  contract?  ot  this  sort  in  such  se-  bk.  1,  c.  4,  i;  10. 

vcre  rebuke,  for  it  allowed  proffinf'C,  *  Williamson  v.  Gibson,  2  Sch.  d;  Let 

or  match-makers,  to  receive  a  reward  357. 


-'-2  rKAii)  rroN    rim;i>  i'aktii'.s. 

piin  in  contnivcntioii  of  tlu'  rii^hts  of  third  parties,  whoso 
interests  are  thus  ccuitroUed  and  sacrificed.' 

Of  a  kindrctl  nature  to  niarriai;^  broka^o  contracts,  and 
:?overne<l  by  the  same  rule,  aro  cases  where  bDiids  are  i^ivcn, 
i>r  other  agreements  made  as  a  reward  f(»r  usini;  inlluence  and 
power  over  another  person  ti»  induce  him  to  make  a  will  in 
favor  of  the  obliircc  ami  for  his  benefit,  for  all  such  contracts 
fend  to  the  deceit  and  injury  uf  third  parties,  and  encourage 
artifice  and  improper  attemi)t  to  control  the  exercise  of  their 
free  judgment.'*  Hut  such  cases  arc  carefully  to  bo  distin- 
miished  from  tlmse  in  which  there  is  an  afxreement  among 
heirs  or  other  near  relatives  to  share  the  estate  equally  be- 
tween them,  whatever  may  be  the  M'ill  made  by  the  testator; 
for  such  an  agreement  is  generally  made  to  suppress  fraud 
and  undue  influence,  and  cannot  truly  be  said  to  disappoint 
the  testator's  inteiition,  if  he  does  not  impose  any  restriction 
on  his  devisee.' 

Of  a  kindred  nature  to  marriage  brokage  contracts  aro 
office  brokage  bonds.  Com  Is  of  this  sort  are  fraudulent,  and, 
therefore,  void  upon  grounds  of  public  policy,  the  tendency  of 
such  bonds  being  to  introduce  unfit  pei-sons  into  i)laces  of 
great  public  trust,  and  to  defraud  the  public  of  the  service  of 
the  most  efficient  candidates  or  officers.* 

BONDS   TO   :srAUKV. 
A  bond  given  by  a  young  woman  secretly  to  a  man,  condi- 
tioned to  ]»ay  him  a  sum  of  money,  if  she  did  n<»t  marry  him 
on  the  death  of  tiic  parent  or  other  iiidi\i«lu  il  from  whom  she 
has  expectancies,  but  kept  secret  fpim  lilm,  is  in  eipiity  looked 

'  ppvtnn  p.   mn<lw<-ll.   1   V<rn.    '.ilK;  crud  v.  Wdhoroil,  ih.  183;   Story'a  E(). 

StribblehJll  v.  IJrill.  -*  V<rn.  ll'i;  Kwit  Jur.  'Ji'.n,  7«5. 

f.  Allt-n,  ilt.  fiHH.   1    F..11I1.  i:.|.  Ilk.  I.e.  '  Liiw  I'.  Liiw.  Cn.   t.  Talh.  lift.  3  P. 

4.  ;}  11  ;  Story'n  Kq.  Jur.  \H>t'>,  'Ji'.T.  W'lun.  :i'il  ;  Morri-<  i-.  M'i'iilloclj,  2  Kdon, 

»  I)i-I«'nliniii  I'.  Ox.  1  Vi'x.  ".'"rt.  I."';    Ilatinin'^'lon   v.   l)u  ( •|inl.'l.  1  Urn. 

»  lUcklc;y  f.  N.'wlaml.  '.i  I'.  Wm.  IHI;  *'.  C.  IJ»;  llirtw.ll  r.  Il.iriw.-ll    1  Vo4, 

IlarwooJ  i'.  IVikc,  '.;  .-tiiii.  \'J'l;  Wctli-  bll;  0«boriiu  r.  WilliaiiiH,  18  Vc«.  37l>. 


FRAUD    LTON    'IIIIKD    I'AKTIKS.  223 

on  as  a  IVaud  on  the  ]):ircnt  or  otlior  imlividiial,  from  wlioin  bIig 
lia^  c'X[)i>rtation.s,  wIid  (lisa[)[)rovL'(l  of  tliu  iiiarria^a-,  and  nii^lit 
1)0  niisk'(l  into  iiiakiii:^  a  [)rovisi<)n  lor  her,  wliicli,  had  ho 
known  of  (lie  ImukI,  lie  inii:;ht  have  done  in  tiiich  a  iiiauner  as 
wouM  have  pruventud  thu  marriage.^ 

FRAUD  IN  WITUIIOLDIXG  CONSENT  TO  :\rARRIAGE. 

Gifts  and  legacies  are  often  bestowed  U[)on  perMjn.s  upon 
condition  that  they  shall  not  inirry  without  the  consent  of 
jmrents,  guardians,  or  otlier  confidential  persons.  If  such  con- 
sent to  the  marriage  is  withheld  from  a  corrupt  motive,  the 
Court  of  Chancery  may  interfere.  It  has  been  contended  that 
if  the  person  whoso  consent  is  ref[uired  is  interested  in  with- 
holding it,  he  must  show  a  reason  for  his  dissent.  But  if  tlie 
author  of  the  trust  chooses  to  require  the  consent  of  a  person 
whom  he  knows  at  the  time  to  have  an  interest  in  refusing  it, 
it  is  difficult  to  conceive  an  equity  interfering  with  his  choice. 
At  all  events  no  equity  will  arise  if  the  trustee  has  meant  to 
act  honestly,  though  his  decision  may  nut  be  the  same  as  that 
at  which  the  court  would  have  arrived.^ 

FRAUD  EN  RESPECT  OP  EXPECTANCEE3. 

It  would  appear  to  have  been  partly,  if  not  mainly,  on  tlie 
ground  that  a  bargain  with  an  expectant  heir  in  respect  of  his 
expectancy  during  the  life,  and  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
person  from  whom  the  expectancy  was  looked  for,  was  a  fraud 
on  the  latter,  that  a  bargain  -with  an  expectant  heir  was  liable 
to  be  opened  and  set  aside  upon  the  ground  merely  of  under- 
value.' A  fair  and  hond  fide  agreement,  however,  between 
expectants  to  share  equally,  or  in  a  certain  manner,  the  ]'r>',)- 

•  Woodhouse  v.  Shoplej-.  2  Atk.  536;       Sw.  140,  147;  Kins:  Ilnmlot,  2  M.  «t  K. 
Cock  V.  Richards,  10  Ves.  429.  43().     But  see  now  31  Virt,  c  4,  'w/.r.*, 

*  Clarke  v.  Parker,  19  Ves.  1.  p.  187  n. 
»  Duvis  V.  Duke  of  Marlborough,  2 


'y^  \ 


ritAT'T)  I  I'dN   TiiiKi)  i'.\irrii:s. 


crty  which  miirht  hi-  K  It  thi'iii,  althoiijjh  t'iitcM\'<l  into  behiiul 
the  back  of  tho  pcrtjitii  iVoiii  whom  the  i'xj>cctaucy  is  looked 
for,  has  always  been  luld  \ali(l  in  e(iuity.' 

FlJAl  I)  IN  HKSPECT  OF  SALES  IIV  AlCiTIOX. 

AixreciiU'iits  whereby  ])artii's  for  tlu'  inirjxisc  of  ]»revcntin^ 
competition  at  an  auction,  and  of  depressini,'  the  value  of  the 
pr(»]»crty  below  its  market  ]>ri('e,  eniCiiLTt'  H'^t  to  bid  ai^ainst  each 
other,  have  been  held  in  some  American  cases  to  operate  as  a 
fraud  upon  third  parties.'^*  ]>ut  it  is  dilKcuIt  to  see  upon  what 
j>rinciple  it  can  be  maintaincMl  tliat  a  mere  agreement  between 
two  ])ersons,  each  desirous  of  elfeeting   tlie  purcliaso   of  an 


•Bcckloyi'.  Xowlnml,2r.  Wms.  1S2;  29;  Donlin  r.  Wnnl,  C  Johns.  (Amor.) 

Wftluri'd   V.    Withered,   2   Sim.   1«;{;  194;   Will)iir  r.  llow,  8  .lohiis.  (Amer  ) 

Ilnrwojd    v.   Tooke,  ih.    192;  Hyde  r.  4  II;  lluwley  i*.  (.'ramer,  4  (.'ow.  (Amcr.) 

White.    r>   Sim.  ri24  ;  Lyde   v.  Myim,  1  717;     Hrislmiie    v.    Adniiiri,     15    Comst. 

M.  <V  K.  CSIJ.    See  Hiiuljhtuii  c.  Lees,  1  (Aiiier.)    12'.t;    Story's    j:<i.    Jur.    29:1. 

Jur.  N.   S.  S02 ;  lleaii  v.  Tonge,  9  Ila.  See  also  Fuller  v.   Ahruhiuua,  C  Moo. 

luo.  .  310. 

•  Jones  V.  Caswell,  3  Johns.  (Amcr.) 


♦  Troup  r.  Wood,  4  Johns.  Ch.  228;  Grant  r.  Lioy.l,  12  Smed.  &  Mar. 
191 ;  Martin  r.  Rank-tt,  5  Rich.  541 ;  Wootcn  v.  Ilinklc,  20  Mo.  290;  Dud- 
ley  r.  Little,  2  Oliin,  COS;  Piatt  r.  Oliver,!  McClonn,  29.'i;  CJuliok  r.  Ward, 
GUalst.  H7;  Martin  r.  IMight,  4  J.  J.  Marsh.  491. 

The  law  does  not  tolerate  any  influence  likely  to  i>revent  competition 
at  judicial  sales,  and  it  aecords  to  every  debtor  the  rhanres  for  a  lair  sale 
and  full  price.     Cocks  r.  Izard,  7  Wall.  559. 

It  is  es.sential  to  the  validity  of  tax  sales,  not  merely  that  they  sliould 
be  conducted  in  conformity  to  the  requirement  of  law,  hut  that  tiiey 
should  l>e  eonducted  with  entire  fairness.  I'erfect  freedom  from  all  in- 
fluence likely  to  prevent  eonipetilion  in  the  Pah'shouhl  he  strictly  e.KaclCvl. 
Slattr  r.  Maxwell,  (J  Wall.  20H. 

A  Bale  of  real  estate  rn  inusnc,  instead  of  in  separate  panels,  will  only 
be  Bct  aside  upon  the  jfroimd  of  fraud  or  prejudice  to  Boiue  ono'.s  rights. 
Hose  r.  M«ad,  5  (Jilman,  171. 

The  mere  fact  that  the  purchase  was  maile  liy  an  association  forme! 
for  the  purpose  of  hiddin;;,  does  not  make  a  sale  void.  If  the  object  and 
puri)OHe  i>f  the  association  are,  not  to  prevent  competition,  but  to  enable, 
or  as  an  inducement  to,  the  persons  couiposin}^'  il  to  partic  ipale  in  the  bi.l- 


FRAUD   UPON    TIIli:i)    I'AItTIKS.  liL'.'* 

estate,  tliat  they  will  not  bid  ai^aiust  each  otlier,  but  that  oiMr 
hIkiU  retire  and  leave  the  Held  (»|»eii  to  the  otlicr,  can  be  held 
to  invalidate  the  sale,  and  in  two  cases  Itcioiv,  our  own  courts, 
an  ai;reenient  to  this  ellect  has  been  licid  irxod.* 

The  secret  emplovnient  by  the  owner  of  proj)erty  of  a 
puflier,  or  nnderbidder,  at  a  sale  by  auction  of  the  property,  is 
at  law  a  fraud  upon  hond  fide  bidders  ;  nor  can  the  owner  bid 
privately  for  his  own  property.  All  secret  dealing  on  the  j)art 
,of  the  seller  is  decnieil  fraudulent.  If  he  be  unwilling  that 
his  goods  shall  be  sold  at  an  under  price,  he  may  order  them  to 
be  set  up  at  his  own  price  or  not  lower,  or  lie  may  ])reviously 
declare  as  a  condition  of  the  sale,  that  it  is  subject  to  a  reserved 
price.'*     In  cipiity,  however,  a  vendor  could  lawfully,  without 


'  Gnlton  V.   Emiiss,  1   Coll.  213 ;  Ro  "^  Bexnell  v.   Christie,    Cowp.    .305 ; 

Cnrcw'.^  Estate,  2(>  IJonv.  187.    See  also  Ilowarl  ,<.  Castle,  0  T.   R.   012;  Tlior- 

Phippen   v.   Sticliney,  o  Jletc.  (Anicr.)  nett  r.  Haines,  15  M.  ik  W.  307 ;  Green 

3St ;    Sncll  v.    Jones,   6    8erj.    &,    \\.  v.  Laverstocke,  U  C.  B.  N.  S.  204. 
(Amer.)  1U2. 


ding,  tlic  sale  will  l)e  uphold.  Kearney  v.  Taylor,  15  IIow.  49t ;  Goode  v. 
Iluwkin,  3  Dcv.  Eq.  30:3;  Smith  v.  Greenlee,  2  Dev.  126;  SmuU  v.  Jones, 
1  M.  «fc  S.  128;  Phippcn  v.  Stickney,  3  Met.  387;  contra,  Thompson  r. 
Davis,  13  John^  112;  Dudley  v.  Little,  1  Ohio,  50D;  Switzer  v.  Skilcs,  3 
Oilman,  520 ;  AVolf  v.  Luystcr,  1  Hall,  140. 

A  purchaser  who  uses  unfair  means  to  prevent  competition  cannot  hold 
the  property.  Newman  v.  Meek,  1  Freeman's  Ch.  441 ;  Johnston  o.  La 
Mutte,  G  Kich.  Eq.  347;  Plaster  r.  Burger,  o  Ind.  232. 

It  is  no  fraud  for  a  purchaser  to  declare  that  he  intends  to  give  the 
property  to  the  debtor,  or  let  him  redeem,  when  such  is  really  his  intention. 
To  make  a  purchase  void,  it  must  be  i)roved  that  the  prop;.'rty  was  ob- 
tained at  an  undue  value  and  by  a  false  representation.  Dick  r.  Cooper, 
24  Penn.  217;  Benedict  v.  Oilman,  4  Paige,  o8 ;  Brown  v.  Lynch,  1  Paige, 
147. 

*  Towle  0.  Lcavitt,  23  X.  U.  3G0;  MoncrielT  r.  Goldsborough,  4  II.  & 
Mc.  H.  281 ;  Wolf  p.  Luyster,  1  Hall,  146;  Wood  v.  Hall,  1  Dev.  Eq.  411 ; 
Staines  r.  Shores,  IG  Penn.  200;  Trust  v.  Delaplaine,  3  E.  D.  Smith,  219; 
Donaldson  r.  M'Roy,  1  Brown,  346;  Smith  r.  Greenlee.  2  Dev.  120;  Jen- 
kin?  r.  Ilogtr,  2  Const.  K.  821;  Baliam  r.  Bach,  13  La.  2s7;  Woods  r. 
Hall,  13  La.  411 ;  Morelu-ad  c.  Iluut,  1  Dev.  &  Bat.  Eq.  35. 


'J'JG  rr.Mi)  riM)N   rimn)  r.vuTir.s. 

any  exj>ross  stipulation,  »ir  witliuut  iiiuUiii:;  the  fact  j>ul»liely 
known,  lix  a  ivsiTvi-il  ju-icf  ami  rinjijoy  a  jH-rsnii  to  liiil  lor 
liini,  so  as  to  prevent  tho  i)ropcrty  ^oin^;  undtT  that  j>ricu ;  but 
if  more  than  one  ])er.son  he  oinj)loye(l  to  hiil,  or  ii  the  object 
of  the  eni[)h>ynient  of  a  bidder  be  to  run  uj)  and  enhance  tlio 
])rice,  or  if  the  sale  profess  to  be  without  reserve  and  a  bidder 
be  nevertheless  employed,  there  is  a  fiaud  in  equity  as  well  as 
at  law.^  Lord  Cranworth,  in  Mortimer  v.  JJell,^  and  Knight 
Druce,  L.  J.,  in  AVoodward  v.  Miller,^  animadverted  upon  the 
inconvenience  of  there  being  a  conflict  between  the  rules  at 
law  and  equity  upon  the  subject,  and  said  they  considered  the 
rule  at  law  more  salutary  than  the  rule  which  had  been  adopted 
by  courts  of  ecjuity.  With  tiie  view  accordingly  of  obviating 
this  inconvenience  in  the  case  of  sales  by  auction  of  land,  and 
of  assimilating  the  rules  of  law  and  equity,  it  has  been  lately 
enacted  by  o'»  *\:  31  Vict.  c.  -iS,  that  particulars  or  conditions 
of  sale  by  auction  of  laud  shall  state  whether  the  sale  be  with 
or  without  reserve;  and  that,  if  the  sale  is  stated  to  be  without 
reserve,  the  seller  may  not  employ  any  person  for  him;^  but 
that,  if  the  sale  is  stated  to  be  subject  to  a  i;eserved  price,  the 
seller,  or  any  person  named  on  his  l)ehalf,  may  bid.'  The  stat- 
ute doG6  not  affect  any  species  of  property  other  than  land. 

VOLUNTAIIY  CONVEYANCES  IX  FRAUD  OF  SUHSEQUENT 

pri{(  iiAsi;i{s. 
Another  class  of  frauds  u[)on  third  parties  is  that  of  volun- 

'  Smith    V.    Clnrko.    12    Yes.    477;  *  L.  U.  1  (^h.  .Vi-p.  10. 

WcxKlwunl  r  Miller,  'i  Cull.  27tt;  Rob-  •  2  Coll.  27'J. 

iimon    «•.    Willi.    2   ri>.    a72;     I'liul   v.  *  Sec.  ft. 

WooJin,  y  Uu.  C18.  *  Sec.  0. 


An  auctionwr  cnnnot  make  fictitioiw  Ii'hI'*.     Ycizic  r.  Willinm><.  si  How. 

i:;i. 

.\n  auctioriccT  who  sill-t  lulow   the  hiim  iix(  d   l)y  ilu'  vtinlor.  is  liablo 
for  the  dilTcrcnco.     Steele  p.  Ellmakcr,  U  S.  iV  U.  nil. 


rUALl)   I  TON   TlilUl)    I'AUTIKS.  '2'2t 

tiu'Y  conveyances  of  real  estate  in  regard  to  Bul)ficqnent  pur- 
chasers. ]3y  the  27  VAh.  e.  4,  made  perpetual  by  'M  Kliz.  c. 
18,  g  131,  all  conveyances,  tV'c,  of  any  hereditaments  fur  iImj 
intent  and  jmrpose  to  deceive  purchasers  arc  made  void  as 
airainst  theni.^  ("nurts  ot'  finiitv  had  jurisdiction  in  the  matter 
lonir  before  the  statute.  Tlie  act  has  not  defeated  the  jurisdic- 
tion,  but  only  _i;-ives  a  more  clear  and  distinct  jurisdiction,  and 
a  more  extended  remedy.*  A  voluntary  conveyance,  is,  l)y  the 
statute,  void  as  a<i^ainst  a  subsequent  purchaser,  although  it 
may  have  been  ho/ul  Jide  and  lur  <i;()od  consideration,  and 
although  the  purchaser  may  have  had  full  notice  of  the  volun- 
tary conveyance.  The  statute  in  every  such  case  infers  fraud, 
and  Avill  not  allow  the  presumption  to  be  rebutted.^*  A  vol- 
untary conveyance  will  not  be  supported  against  a  subsequent 


•  Sec  Terry  nerrick  !•,  Attwood,  2  D.  vertoft  v.  rulvcrtoft,   18  Yes.  84,  86; 

<t  J.  21.  IJucklo  V.  Mitchfll,  ih.  Ino;  Kelson  i-. 

^  lb.  Kelsiiii,  10  Ha.  :W5 :   Dakiiii,'  v.  Whini- 

'  Taylor  v.   Stile,  cit.   Svur.  "V.  <t  P  per,  2i-,  Beav.  508 ;  Clarke  v.  Wriglit,  G 

•711;  Kvelyn  »•.  Templar.  2  Bro.  C.  ('.  H.  »t  X.  840. 

148 ;  Doe  v.  Manning,  9  East,  59 ;  I'ul- 


*  Clanter  r.  Burgc.«s,  2  Dcv.  Eq.  i:^;  Freeman  r.  Eatman,  3  Ircd.  Eq. 
81 ;  Anderson  c.  Green,  7  J.  J.  Marsli.  448;  Barrineass  r.  M'.Murray,  3  Bre- 
vard, 204  ;  Carter  r.  Cartleljury,  5  Ala.  377 ;  Latter  v.  ;Morrison,  1  Ircd. 
149;  Elliott  v.  Iloni,  10  Ala.  348;  Ricker  p.  Ilam,  14  Mass.  137;  Clapp 
r.  Tirrell,  20  Pick.  247;  Tate  r.  Lcggatt,  2  Leigh,  84;  Bell  r.  Blaney,  2 
ilurph.  181. 

The  received  construction  in  England  of  the  British  statutes  at  the 
time  of  our  separation  from  the  British  empire,  may  be  considered  as  accom- 
panying the  statutes  and  forming  an  integral  part  of  them.  Subsequent 
decisions  are  entitled  to  respect,  but  are  not  absolute  authority.  At  tlie 
commencement  of  the  American  Revolution  the  construction  of  the  statute 
of  27th  Elizabeth  was  not  settled.  The  principle  adopted  in  this  countrj- 
in  continuing  the  statute,  is,  that  a  sulisequent  sale  without  notice  by  a 
person  who  ha?*  made  a  settlement  not  on  valuable  consideration,  is  pre- 
sumptive evidence  of  fraud,  and  throws  on  the  person  claiming  under  such 
settlement  the  burden  of  proving  that  it  was  mad3  hon  t  ji<h\  Cathcart  r. 
Robinson,  5  Pet.  2i34  ;  Lync  r.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  5  J.  J.  Mai-sh.  545  ;  Vcr- 


*2'2S  n:.\r!>  i  ton  Tiin:i>  r\nTir.f=«. 

puivhasor,  evtMi  nltlioiiu'li  it  may  have  been  made  by  llio  direc- 
tion ot'tlie  fi.iirt.'  A  )>urcli:isfr  cannt.t,  li..\vcvi>r,  avail  himself 
of  the  jirovisions  of  the  statute  unless  he  has  purehased  bond 
p'iie  and  for  a  valuable  eonsideration.     The  c.n-lilnation  must 

'  Martin   r.   Martin.  2  U.   .t   M.  r.*^",  ;   Dart,  V.  .t  I".  :>70. 


l>lanck  r.  Stcrry,  12  Johns.  530;  B.  c.  1  Johns.  Ch.  2G0;  Bank  of  Alexan- 
dria r.  Fatten,  1  IJob.  490;  Lancaster  r.  Dolan,  1  Hawlo,  231 ;  Footman  c. 
Fonilcrirrass,  3  Uich.  Eq.  33 :  Corprcw  r.  Arlhiir,  l."»  Ala.  525  ;  Mayor  &  City 
Council  of  Baltimore  r.  Williams,  (i  M«l.  235;  Fowler  r.  Stonoum,  11  Tex. 
478 ;  Wells  r.  Tread  well.  2s  Mi-s.  717 ;  Brown  r.  Bucks,  22  Geo.  574 ;  Gar<l- 
ner  r.  Booth,  31  Ala.  13G ;  Gardner  r.  Cole,  21  Iowa,  205  ;  Jackson  r.  Town, 
4  Cowon,  003 ;  Seward  r.  Jackson,  8  Cow.  400;  Wickesr.  Clarke,  8  Paige, 
105;  Beal  r.  Wamn.  2  Gray,  440;  Salmon  v.  Bennett,  1  Ct.  525. 

The  act  does  not  ai)i)ly  to  conveyances  made  by  the  State,  because  it 
operate.^  upon  the  intent  of  the  person  conveyinjr.  and  the  State  cannot 
leirally  be  said  to  intend  to  defraud  any  person.  Dodson  r.  Cooke,  1  Over- 
ton, 314. 

The  same  circumstances  which  would  render  a  deed  fraudulent  if  the 
grantor  liad  owned  the  legal  estate,  likewise  render  it  fraudulent  considered 
as  a  mere  as-i;.'nment  of  his  equity.  The  claimant  of  an  equity  whose 
claim  is  based  upon  a  valuable  consideration,  must  prevail  over  a  i)rior 
claim  to  the  same  equity  based  upon  a  good  consideration  merely.  Lyne 
r.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  5  J.  J.  ^larsh.  545. 

To  make  a  voluntaiy  conveyance  void,  it  must  be  covinous  and  fraud- 
ulent, and  not  voluntary  merely,  and  the  evidence  of  fraud  must  \je 
pointed.     Clayton  r.  Brown,  17  Geo.  217  ;  Cooke  r.  Kcll,  13  Md.  4G9. 

The  iloctrine  only  applies  where  both  conveyances  are  made  by  the 
same  person.  Russell  c.  Kearney,  27  Geo.  90 ;  Bell  r.  3IeCauley,  29  Geo. 
355. 

A  voluntary  conveyance  without  actual  fraud  is  valid  against  a  subse- 
quent purchaser  for  valuable  consideration  with  naticc  of  the  prior  con- 
veyances. Bank  of  Alexandria  r.  Patton,  1  Kob.  499;  Anderson  r.  Green, 
7  i.  J.  Marsh.  418;  Foster  r.  Walt(jn,  5  Watts,  378;  Iludnal  r.  Wilder,  4 
3IcCord,  291  ;  FoDtman  r.  Pen<lergass,  3  Uich.  Kcj.  33;  Frisbic  r.  McCarty, 
1  Stew,  it  Port.  08;  Mayor  &  C.  C.  of  Baltimore  r.  Williams,  C.  Md.  235; 
Dougherty  v.  Jack,  5  Watts,  450;  Speiso  r.  McCoy.  0  W.  &  S  485  ;  Moul- 
trie r.  Jennings.  2  McMiillan,  508;  Howard  c.  Williams,  1  Bailey,  575; 
Sanger  r.  Ka-lwood.  19  Wend.  514  ;  Shaw  r.  I^\7,  17  S.  &  U.  99;  Tato  r. 
Ligl,'att,  2  Leigh.  Hi  ;  Iliatt  r.  Watlc.  8  Ired.  310;  Brown  r.  Buck,  22  Geo. 
574;  Chaflin  r.  Kiml«all.  2:i  III.  3(J ;  Coppagr  r.  Harnett.  31  Miss.  021; 
Endcri  r.  Williams,  1  Met.  (Ky.>  340;  Aiken  r.  Bruen,  21  Ind.  137. 


niAlI)    I  TON   Tlllill)   I'AUTir..'^.  'JL'9 

not  ])G  so  small  us  to  Ijo  i)al]>al)ly  IVainlulcntJ*  In  order  that 
a  subsequent  conveyance  for  value  should  delcat  a  j)rior  volun- 
tary conveyance,  it  is  also  essential  that  l)oth  conveyances 
should  be  made  by  the  same  person.  An  heir  or  devisee  can- 
not by  a  conveyance  lor  value  defeat  a  v(»luntary  settlemeni 
made  by  his  ancestor  or  testator;"  nor  will  e(|uity  inteH'ere  in 
favor  of  a  subsequent  purchaser,  where  the  voluntary  grantee 
has  conveyed  it  to  a  hond  fide  purchaser  for  value,  or  a  person 
has  inteniiai-rii-d  with  ihc  voluntary  grantee,  on  the  faith  of  the 
voluntary  deed,  before  the  hond  fide  purchaser  from  the  volun- 
tary grantee  acquired  his  title.' f 

A  contract  to  sell  the  settled  estate  to  a  person  with  full 
notice  of  the  voluntary  settlement,  will  be  enforced  at  the  suit 


•  Ilnmphreys  v.  Ponsam,  1  M.  AC.  •  Parker  v.  Cirtcr,   4  Ila.  400 ;  Doe 

nSO;  Roberts  v.   Williams,  4  Ila.  loO;  v.    Kuslmni,    17    Q.  B.    723;  Lewis   v. 

Kelson  v.  Kelsoo,  10  Ha.  aSJ ;  Sug.  V.  llces,  3  K.  k  J,  1:52. 

&.  P.  713.  '  Sug.  V.  <fc  P.  720,  721. 


A  record  of  a  deed  is  constructive  notice  to  all  su!)sequent  purchasers. 
Cooke  r.  Kell,  13  Md.  4G9  ;  Bell  v.  Blaney,  2  Miirph.  171  ;  Cain  c  Jones,  5 
Terg.  B49 ;  Bank  of  Alexandria  v.  Fatten,  1  Rob.  499 ;  Lancaster  v.  Dolan, 
1  Rawle,  231 ;  M'Xeely  v.  lluckcr,  C  Blackf.  391 ;  contra,  Lewis  v.  Love,  3 
B.  M(in.  345 ;  Enders  v.  Williams,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  340. 

When  a  deed  is  actually  fraudulent,  the  constructive  notice  arisinij  from 
recording  will  not  dolcat  the  right  of  a  subsequent  purchaser,  Gardner 
V.  Cole,  21  Iowa,  205. 

*  Fulleuwider  r.  Roberts,  4  Dev.  &  Bat.  278:  Tate  v.  Tate,  1  Dev.  & 
Bat.  Eq.  22. 

Iso  man  is  a  subsequent  purchaser  except  him  to  whom  a  conveyance 
has  been  executed  for  a  valual)le  consideration,  by  which  there  is  conveyed 
to  him  an  estate  in  the  premises  either  of  treehold  or  for  years  or  some  rent 
or  profit  therein.  A  covenant  to  convey  is  no  such  sale  as  constitutes  the 
covenantee  a  subsequent  jiurchaser.  He  must  have  a  legal  title  such  as  be 
can  enforce  at  law,  and  not  a  mere  equity.  Hopkins  v.  Webb,  9  Humph 
519. 

t  Anderson  v.  Green,  7  J.  J.  ^Marsh.  448;  S terry  v.  Ardcn,  1  Johns.  Ch. 
260. 


280  rKAii)  rroN   riiii;i>  rAi:'rii:s. 

of  the  purcliiisor;*  hut  tlic  seller  eannot  compel  n  fipeeifie  per- 
fonnaiuv  of  the  contract.'  A  trust  created  hy  a  voluntary 
settlenu'ut  will  he  carried  into  execution  until  sale;  hut  an 
injunction  will  not  he  frranted  restrainini;  the  settler  from 
defeating;  the  settlement  hy  a  sale,^  nor  will  the  pendeiuy  of  a 
suit  ]irevent  the  settler  from  scllini,'  the  ])roperty,  or  the 
l)urchaser  from  iilini;  a  hill  in  (.)rder  to  enforce  his  ri;j:hts  under 
the  contract.*  When  a  voluntary  settlement  is  avoided  by  a 
subsequent  sale,  the  volunteers  have  no  equity  against  the 
jnirchase  money  payable  to  the  settler.' 

As  between  the  parties  themselves,  and  as  ac^ainst  other 
voluntary  irrantces  of  the  same  estate,  voluntary  c<»nvevances 
are  binding."  *  A  voluntary  settlement  will  be  defeated  by  a 
conveyance  or  settlement  for  value  only  to  the  extent  neces- 
sary to  give  effect  to  the  conveyance  or  settlement  for  value.'' 
As  between  two  volunteers,  the  conveyance  which  is  prior  in 
date  will  prevail,  if  it  be  Ijond  fide?  A  subsequent  volunteer 
cannot,  by  selling  for  value,  confer  any  title  on  a  purchaser  as 
against  a  grantee  of  the  same  estate  who  is  prior  in  date.*  A 
judgment  creditor  imt  lieiiig  a  ]iurchascr  witliin  tlu-  meaning 
of  the  statute,  has  no  title  on  that  ground  to  set  aside  a  prior 
voluntary  settlement.^"  f     Though  a  settlement  may  ajiptar  on 

•Buckle    V.   Mitchell,   18    Vef».    100;  •Bill  r.    Cureton,  2   M.   A   K.   ^03; 

Currif  v.  Nin.l,    1  M.  «V.  ('.  17;   Willats  Doc  v.  Rtisimin,  17  (i-  13.  1T.\;  Lewis  v. 

V.  Busby,  r.  Beav.   \'j:i;  Lister  v.  Tur-  Kees.  u  K.  &  J.  lli'J. 

ner,  5  Ha.  '2'J\  ;  Su-.:.  V.  A  ]'.  72n.  '  Croker  v.  Martin,  1   Bligh'a  N.  S. 

'   Smith    f.    (Muinri.l.    *i    .Mcr.     123;  673. 

Johnson  r.  Lc;,'.ir.i,  T.  ct  U. -.IHl.  "Doc    v.    Uushain.    17   Q.    B.    728; 

•  I'lilvertoft  v.  rniv<rt<.(t,  is  Ves.  SJ.  L<"wis  i-.  Keca,  3  K.  «fc  J.  132. 

•  Metcair-   r.    rulvertoft,    1    V.    it  B.  »  ///. 

180;  Su;,'.  V.  A-  1'.  721.  "•  Bcnvan  v.  Lord  Oxford,  r,  D.  M.  A. 

•  Daking  t>.  Whiiujicr,  20  Bcav.  608.       O.  607. 


♦  TatP  r.  Tntc,  1  Dcv.  A-  B.it.  Eq.  22;  r!ai)p  r.  TirrcU.  1  Pick.  217. 

+  ThcTo  iH  no  tnatcrial  diiriTt-ncc  Iwlwci-n  a  judicial  sale  ami  a  private 
Bale.  Heynnldrt  r.  ViluH,  b  Wia  471  ;  Latla  r.  Jlorrison,  1  Ircd.  110;  contra^ 
Kidgway  r.  Umknvood,  1  Wasli.  129. 


FRAUD  TTON   TIIIIM)    I'A  KTIKfl.  2.31 

its  faco  to  l)c  V(»lnntary,  cviduncu  is  adiiiissildu  to  j)rove  that 
it  was  made  lor  valuable  consideration.^  In  tlic  case  of  deeds 
allefrcd  to  lie  volunlarv,  llic  cnurt  docs  not  enter  intu  the 
quantum'  of  consideration  ;  hut  oidy  iiii|uires  wlietlier  the 
transaction  was  one  of  harijain  or  one  of  gift  merely.^  In  a 
case  ■\vhcrc  an  agreement  was  entered  into  between  a  lady, 
entitled  in  fee  to  an  estate  snhjcct  to  mortgages,  and  her 
nephew,  that  she  should  come  and  live  with  him,  and  that  he 
should  remove  into  a  larger  house,  and  he  covenanted  to 
indemnify  her  from  all  liability  in  respect  of  the  mortgages, 
and  fullilled  his  own  part  of  the  agreement,  it  was  held  that 
the  settlement  was  not  voluntary,  the  covenant  to  indemnify, 
and  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  nei)hcw  on  the  faith  of  the 


'Kelson    v.    Kelson,    10    Iln.    S85  ;  '  Townend  r.  Tokcr,  L.  R.  1  Cb.  App. 

Towueud  V.  Toker,  L.  11.  1  t'li.  App.      459. 


A  purchaser  from  an  executor  is  witLin  the  statute.  Clapp  r.  Leather- 
bee,  18  Pick.  131. 

A  mortgagee  is  a  purchaser  for  a  valuable  consideration.  Lewis  v. 
Love,  2  B.  Men.  345  ;  Lancaster  r.  Dolan,  1  Rawle,  231 ;  Freeman  v.  Lewis, 
5  Ired.  91;  Potts  r.  r>lackwell,  3  Jones'  Ec^.  440;  s.  c.  4  Jones'  Eq.  58; 
Lcdgard  v.  Butler,  9  Paige,  132. 

A  deed  made  exclusively  with  the  design  to  defraud  creditors  can  not 
be  considered  as  having  been  made  with  the  design  to  defraud  purchasers. 
Foster  v.  Walton,  5  AYatts,  378;  Shaw  v.  Lev}-,  17  S.  &  R.  99 ;  Douglass  r. 
Dunlap,  10  Ohio,  1G2;  Sanger  v.  Eastwood,  19  Wend.  514;  Teasdale  r, 
Atkinson,  2  J3rtvard,  48 ;  "Woodman  r.  Bodtish,  25  Me.  317;  Fowler  r. 
Stoneura,  11  Tex.  478 ;  Jloscley  r.  Jloseley,  15  N.  Y.  334 ;  Doolittle  r. 
Lyman,  44  N.  U.  008;  Stevens  r.  :Morse,  247  N.  H.  532. 

K  there  is  any  fraud  in  a  voluntary  conveyance,  or  it  is  merely  color- 
able, it  can  never  be  set  up  against  a  subsequent  purchaser  for  a  valual)le 
consideration.  Clapp  r.  Leatherbec,  18  Pick.  131;  Kicker  r.  llani,  14  Mass. 
137  ;  Kimball  r.  Ilutchins,  3  Ct.  4.")0  :  Eddins  v.  Wilson,  1  Ala.  237 ;  Carter 
V.  Castlebrrry,  5  Ala.  377;  Fulknwiiler  r.  Roberts,  4  Dev.  &  Bat.  278; 
Walter  r.  Crallo,  8  B.  Mon.  11  ;  How  r.  Waysman.  12  Mo.  1G9. 


'2;VJ  rnAin  vvos  Tim:i)  miTiES. 

settlement  hvhv^  noininally  tsullicicnt  to  support  it  as  mado  for 
value.^ 

Premiptial  settlements,  and  postnuptial  settlements  in 
pursuance  of  ])renuptial  articles,  or  on  receii)t  of  an  additional 
jiortion,  i*cc.,  Are.,  are  settlements  for  valuable  eonsiileration, 
and  are  therefore  good  against  subsequent  i)ureliaser8  or  j)rior 
voluntary  grantees,  as  the  case  may  be.'**  So  also,  in  certain 
cases,  the  concurrence  of  a  stranger  may  dejjrivc  a  j)0stnuptial 
settlement  of  its  voluntary  character ;  ^  but  as  a  general  rule  a 
postnuptial  settlement  is  voluntary.*  The  marriage  considera- 
tions run  through  the  -whole  settlement,  as  far  as  it  relates  to 
the  husband,  and  wife,  and  issue;  but  docs  nut  extend  to 
remainders  to  collateral  relations,  so  as  to  support  them  against 
a  subsequent  sale  to  a  honii  Jidc  purchaser.'  A  marriage  settle- 
ment so  far  as  it  is  made  in  favor  of  collaterals,  is  voluntary, 
and  therefore  fraudulent  and  void  as  against  subsequent  pui"- 
chasers,  though  made  honestly  and  openly  to  provide  for  the 
settler's  wife  and  children,'  or  his  mother  and  younger 
brothers  and  sisters,'  or  for  a  niece  and  adopted  daughter.' 
Xo  moral  consideration,  however  strong,  is  sutKcient  to  sup- 
port a  settlement  against  a  jiurcliaser;"  but  if  tlie  remainders 
are  specifically  contracted  for,  and  ])rought  within  the  con- 
sideration,'" or  if  the  limitation  in  the  settlement  so  interfere 
with  those  which  would  naturally  be  made  in  favor  of  the 
husband,  wife,  and  issue,  that  it  must  be  presumed  to  have 
been  agreed  upon  by  all    jiarties  as  part  of  the   marriage   con- 


'Towncnd  v.  Tokcr,  L.  R.  1  Cli.  App.  •  Clinpmnn  t'.  Emory,  Cowp.  278,280. 

45!t.  '  l)i)c  I'.  Maiiniii^,  1'  Knst,  Ml. 

»  Su£r.V.  «t  r.  718  ;  Dnrfs  V.  it  P.  670.  *  Stiiilli  .•.  ('iKTrill.  L.  U.  •«  Kq.  390. 

»  l)iirrH  V.  A  I*.  TiTrt.  :i77.  •  Itut  k.o  Cliirki-  v.   Wriijlit,  0  U.  A 

♦  Su(,'.  V.  A  1'.  7I.'>.  N.  S7-J,/«T  C'oikliurn.  (.'.  J. 

'  J()lin»<.n  V.   I.<>:;nr(l,  0  M.   4  8.  CO;  ••  bug.  V.  «k  1'.  710. 
T.  «t  11.281;    8u^^  V.  A  1'.  71fi. 


*  Vcrplanck  r.  Stern,  12  Jnluis.  5:30;  8.  c.  1  Johnn.  Cli.  2'10, 


FRAUD   UrON    Til  IK  I)    I'AUTIHS.  2'.V.] 

tract,  it  in  not  vdlmitary,  and  will  Ik;  Mi|i|i<)rtc<l  a;,'ain.-.t  a  hub- 
se(|m'nt  piirclia.sur.^ 

Tho  Bfatute  27  Kliz.  c.  4,  furtlier  inakcs  void  as  against 
Bubsefiucnt  purchasers  ior  inuiiey  or  other  good  (•(jiisideratioii 
all  eonveyanccs  made  with  any  clause,  provision,  article,  or 
condition  of  revocation,  determination  or  alteration  at  the 
grantor's  will  or  ])leasure,  whether  sucli  clause,  ikc,  ttc,  ex- 
tend to  the  wliole  interest  actually  conveyed  or  only  partially 
affect  it.2 

The  statute  27  Eliz.  c.  4,  does  not  apply  to  personal  chat- 
tels." * 

A  purchaser  for  value  of  real  estate  cannot  come  into  the 
Court  of  Chancery  to  have  a  ])rior  voluntary  deed  void  under 
27  Eliz.  c.  5,  delivered  up  to  be  cancelled.  The  court,  in  such 
a  case,  leaves  both  parties  to  their  legal  rights  and  remedies.* 

NOTICE. 

Another  class  of  frauds  upon  third  parties  consists  of  cases 
where  a  man  takes  or  purchases  property  with  notice  of  the 

•  Clarke  ;■.  Wrii^ht,  fi   II.  &  N.  869,       on  this  subject  Sug.  V.  «tP.  721  ;  Dart's 
ner  Blackburn   and   Willes,  JJ.;  Dart's       V.  tt  P.  584. 

V.  «fe  1'.   578-581;  but  see  0  II.  it  N.  'Jones   v.    Crouclicr,   1    Sim.  <fe  St. 

869,  per  Williams,  J.  315;  Bill  v.    Cureton,  2  M.  ifc   K   503; 

^  Burt  Ileal  Prop.  5.  224.  See  further       Barton  v.  Vanhcythuys  n,  11  Ila.  12G. 

*  De  Ilo^iiton  v.  Money,  3.>  Beav.  98. 


♦  Davis  V.  Bigler,  63  Penn.  342  ;  Tcasdale  r.  Atkinson,  3  Brevard,  48; 
Scwall  V.  Gliddon,  1  Ala.  53;  Bolm  v.  llcadloy,  7  II.  6c  J.  2J7 ;  Garri.<on 
f.  Rives,  3  Jones,  85 ;  Jones  v.  Hall,  5  Jones'  Eq.  30. 

Although  the  terms  of  the  act  apply  only  to  land,  yet,  being  declaratorj- 
of  the  common  law,  they  must  be  interpreted  as  defining  the  nature  and 
effect  of  fraudulent  conveyances,  generally,  in  its  letter,  as  enacting  tlic 
common  l;uv  as  to  fraud  relating  to  land,  but  in  its  spirit  sanctioning  and 
sustaining  the  coudemnation  i)assed  by  the  common  law  upon  all  frauds. 
Gibson  r.  Love,  4  Fla.  317  ;  Footman  v.  Pcndergrass,  3  Rich.  Eq.  33. 

If  the  vendee  allows  personal  property  to  remain  in  the  possession  of 
Iti 


'J:U  rUAl  1)    I   I'CtN    TIIIIM)    I'AKTll'S. 

legal  or  ciiuitaide  title  of  other  persons  to  the  suine  property, 
and  seeks  to  defeat  their  just,  riijhts  hy  a[)j)n>priating  the 
property  to  his  own  use.  In  equity  uotiee  aU'ectH  the  con- 
scienec.  A  man  who  takes  or  jmrchases  property  cannot 
protcet  himself  a*]^ainst  claims,  of  which  he  has  notice,  to  the 
simio  property.  If  a  man  a{'<|uirin<;  property  ha.s  at  the  time 
of  the  acipiisitioii  notice  of  an  equity  bindini;  the  ])erson  from 
whom  he  takes,  in  respect  of  the  projicrty,  he  is  bound  to  the 
sjimc  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  by  the  same  equity.^  *  In 
accordance  witli  this  j)rinciplc  the  ]»urchaser  of  property  from 
a  trustee,  witli  notice  <tf  the  trust,  is  himself  a  trustee  for  the 
same  proi)erty  ;  -  the  purchaser  of  property  whieii  the  vendor 
has  contracted  to  sell,  is,  if  he  has  uotiee  of  the  contract, 
bound  by  the  same  equity  by  which  the  vendor  whom  he 
represents  was  bound  ; ^  the  purchaser  of  property  with  notice 
of  an  equitable  lien  for  unpaid  purchase-money,*  or  of  an 
Cfjuitable  nn»rtixage  by  deposit  of  deeds,'  is  bound  by  the 
e(|uity  to  which  his  vendor  was  liable;  and  the  purchaser  ot 

'  Tavlor  v.  Stibbert,  2  Vcs.  Jr.  437;  Bolnn.l,  1   Dr.  <k  Will.  37.     See  Dowcll 

Dunbar  v.  Tredi-unkk.  2  B;i.  A.  lie.  310.  r.  Diw,  1  Y.  <k  C.  C.  C.  345. 

'  SuundiTs  I'.   Delicw,  2  Vern.   271;  *  Macntli   v.   Symoiis,    16  Vcs.  850; 

Allen   V.   Kni-iit,   5   Hi.   272;    11  Jur.  liieo  c.  Rice.  2  Drew.  73. 

r.27;  Carter  v.   CorU'r.  3  K.  ik  J.  C17;  '  I'lunib  v.  Fiuitt.  2  Anst.  432;  Ilicrn 

Corv  I'.  Evre,  1  D.  J.  <k  S.  149.  v.  Mill,  13  Yes.  114;  DrviUii  v.  Frost, 

•  Taylor  t-.  Stibbert.  2  Yes.  Jur.  438;  3  M.  &  C.  C70 ;  Leigh  r.'Lloyd,  2  D.  J. 

Scott  V.  Dunbar,  1   Moll.  442;  Field  v.  «t  S.  330. 


the  vendor,  ami  the  vendor  sells  it  again  to  a  l>on  l  fide  purchnser  without 
notice,  he  nin  not  recover  it.  Shaw  r.  Levy,  17  8.  &  K.  D'J ;  Davis  r. 
]Jif,'hT,  02  Penn.  212 ;  Fleming  v.  Towuscnd,  0  Geo.  103 ;  lludnal  r. 
Wilder,  4  McCord,  2U5 ;  Harper  r.  Scott,  12  Geo.  125. 

To  Hiistain  a  voluntary  conveyance  of  personal  property  against  a  sub- 
Hequent  purcha-er  for  value,  the  notice  must  he  actual,  and  not  liy  record. 
Flnnini;  r.  Townsen<l,  fl  (Jco.  103;  Fowhr  r.  ^Yal.ilip.  10  (ico.  :(r>0 ;  Ilur- 
1K.T  r.  8<olt,  12  Geo.  125. 

♦Caldwell  r.  Carrlng'on,  9  Pet.  80;  Ma-siy  r.  Mcllvain,  2  IlilPrt  Ch. 
421;  Allen  r.  Sanders,  2  IJild),  Ji4 ;  Voder  r.  Swope,  W  Bibh,  201;  Lang- 
don  r.  Woodfleld,  2  H,  Mon.  105;  Edwards  r.  Morris,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  Co; 
Mordand  r.  Lc.Muatcr,  4  Blackf.  :JM3. 


FRAUD   Ll'ON   TIIIUI)    i'AHTlES.  2.';r> 

land  wliic'li  t!ic  vendor  lias  covenanted  to  use  in  a  specified 
manner  is,  if  he  has  notice-  of  the  covenant,  bound  by  its 
terms.' 

It  iiiust,  however,  be  observed  tliat  tlie  notice  required  by 
the  doctrine  is  notice  of  an  equity,  whicli,  if  clotlied  with  legal 
comj)leteness,  would  be  indefeasible,  and  not  merely  notice  of 
a  defeasible  k\:;al  interest,  or  of  an  interest  which,  if  legal, 
woidil  be  defeasible.  The  principle  is,  that  an  interest  which, 
if  legal,  would  be  indefeasible  shall  not  be  defeated  by  reason 
of  its  equitable  character  by  a  party  who  has  notice  of  it ;  if, 
being  legal,  it  may  be  defeated  at  law,  there  is  no  equity  to 
support  it.'-^  A  voluntary  conveyance,  for  instance,  has  no 
equity  to  support  it  against  a  subsequent  alienation  for  value, 
even  tliougli  with  notice,  fur  tlie  right  of  the  volunteer  is 
defeasible  by  statute.'  A  feme  covert  or  an  infant  is  just  as 
much  bound  by  notice  as  an  adult.* 

Xotice  is  either  actual  or  constructive  ;  but  there  is  n(» 
difference  between  them  in  its  consequences.'  Actual  notice 
consists  in  express  information  of  a  fact,  and  brings  home 
knowledge  directly  to  a  party.  Actual  notice  must,  in  order 
to  be  binding,  at  least  when  it  depends  on  oral  communication 
only,  proceed  from  some  one  interested  in  the  property,"  and 
should  be  in  the  same  transaction.  Mere  vague  rumors,  or 
the  assertions  of  strangers,  will  not  fix  a  party  with  actual 
notice.'    Actual   notice   embraces   all   degrees  and   grades  of 


■  Tulk  V.  Mnxlmv,  2  Ph.  774  ;  Coles  v.  *  Sheldon  v.  Cox,  2  Eden,  221 ;  Pros- 
Sims,  5  D.  M.  «L-'G.  1;  De  Mattos  v.  ser  v.  Kicc,  28  Beav.  68;  Wormald  v 
Gibson,  4  I),  (k  J.  282.  Mnitlaiid,  o")  L.  J.  Ch.  O'J. 

"Adams'  Doct.  Kquitv,  152.  »  Baruiiardt  v.  Greenshields,  9  Moo. 

*  Pulvertoft  J).  Pulvertoft,  18  Ves.  92;  P.  C.  C.  18.  See  Greenslade  v.  Dare, 
Buckle  V.  MitclicU,  <7».  100.  2n  Beav.  284;    Jay  v.   Richardson,  3>i 

*  Jones   V.    Kearney,   1   Dr.  <fc  War.  Beav.  5ti;^. 

I(j6.                            '  "  Sug.  V.  <k  P.  755.     See  Greenslade 


*Flafrjr  r.  Mann.  2  Sumner.  484;  Eply  r.  Witberow.  7  Watts,  163; 
James  r.  Drake,  3  Snecil.  340 ;  Bla.k  v.  Tiiorntou,  31  Geo.  (311. 


23ri 


nJAIl*    ri'(»N   TIIIKH    PARTIES. 


ovidrnco,  iVom  ihc  im^t  ilirirt  ami  )«»sitivi*  jipMif  to  the 
slightest  evidoiice  tVniu  whirli  a  jiirv  woiiM  !);>  warraiitfd  in 
iut'iTrini;  notice.  It  is  a  mere  question  (»t'  tact,  and  is  (»|»en  to 
every  ^^»e^■ies  of  leiritiniate  evidenec  which  may  tend  to 
Btrenirthen  or  i!ni)air  the  conchision.' * 

Whatever  is  notice  enoni,di  to  cxcito  tlic  attention  of  a 
man  of  unlinary  pnidinci-  and  call  for  fiirtla-r  intjniry  is,  in 
0([uity,  notice  otall  facts  to  the  knowled;^e  of  which  an  in^iuiry 
8u:ri,'ested  hy  such  notice,  and  prosecuted  witli  duo  and  reasun- 
ahle  dili^'ence,  wouhl  liave  led.^f  Notice  of  this  sort  is  called 
constructive  notice.  Constructive  notice,  as  distinguished 
from  actual  notice,  iu  a  h-irai  inference  from  established  facts, 
ami,  like  other  leiral  ])resumj)tion.s,  does  not  admit  of  dispute.^ 
If  a  man  has  actual  notice  of  circumstances  sutlicient  to  put  a 
man  of  ordinary  }>rudence  on  incpiiry  as  to  a  jiarticular  point, 
the  knowledge  which  he  mii^ht,  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable 
dilii,'cnce,  have  obtained  will  be  imj)Uted  to  him  by  a  court  of 


r.  Dare,  20  Beav.  lis  I ;  ( Vntnil  Uailway 
Co.  of  Venezuela  v.  Kiscli.  1  L.  K.  A[>\>. 
Ca.  112;  llauiiltou  v.  Uovse,  2  iidi.  it 
Lef.  315. 

'  Williamson  i'.  IJrown,  1  Sinilli 
Amer.),  :{.1'.i,  j-rr  Seltlen,  .1.  See  Bour- 
Bot  r.  Savai^e,  L.  K.  2  Kci.  1:51. 

•  Maitlaiid  t:  Duckliou=e,  17  L.  J.  Ch. 
121  ;  Ksi-e}-  v.  Lake,  lu  lla.  2t;o; 
>laijj,'l«s  If.  Dixon,  a  II.  L.  7U2 ;  Uwen 


I'.  Iloiuau,  1  II.  L.  ?'.'7;  Dawson  r. 
I'rince.  2  1>.  it  J.  41 ;  I'erry  v.  lloll,  2 
1).  F.  »fe  J.  ;t8  ;  Broailbent  i-.  Harlow,  3 
1).  F.  &  J.  57'" ;  Dettinar  r.  Metropoli- 
tun    and    I'roviucial    Bunk,   1  11.  ct  M. 

on. 

'  WiUiain.son  v.  Brown,  1  Smith 
(.\mer.)  a.'j'J. /xr  SuMen,  .1.;  Birdsiull  r. 
Kussell,  2  Tiff.  (Aincr.)  21'J. 


There  is  no  rule  (tf  law  which  makes  u  stiituinent  of  ii  fact  in  a  news- 
paper either  uetuiil  or  constructive  notice.  It  is  not  sutlicient  to  sbo\r 
that  a  person  wa.-<  in  the  hahit  of  readinj;  the  paper.  It  nmst  be  proved 
that  he  read  it.     Lincoln  r.  Wri;,'ht,  23  Penn.  70. 

*  Williamson  i.  Brown,  L",  ,\.  Y.  3.'34. 

t  Galatian  r.  Erwin.  I  llr)pk.48;  Hobert!*  r.  Anderson,  :!  .lohns.  Ch. 
87!;  Pitney  t.  I.conanl.  1  I'ai^'e,  401;  Blaisdell  r.  Stevens,  10  Vt.  173  ; 
HtatT.-nl  r.  Ballou,  17  Vt.:t2»;  Peters  r.  (Joodrich,  3  Ct.  110;  Booth  ». 
Barnum,  0  Ct.  2K0 ;  Binganiun  r.  Hyatt,  1  Smed.  i^  Mar.  Ch.  137. 


rilALl)   I  TON    TIIJKI)    1'A1:T1E8.  2S7 

cijiiltv.  The  presumption  of  the  existence  of  knowled'^'e  is  bo 
sfroii^'  tliiit  it  raiiiiot  l»c  allowed  to  be  rebutted.^* 

Tlurt'  is,  however,  no  (•on>triictivc  not  ice  unless  it  cleai-ly 
ajipear  that  tlie  iiii|iiiiT  sug<^ested  b}'  the  facts  known  or  dis- 
covered would,  if  fairly  i)ursued,  result  in  tlie  discovery. 
There  must  ap])ear  to  be  in  the  nature  of  the  case  such  a  con- 
nection between  the  fact  discovered  and  the  further  facts  to  be 
discovered  that  the  former  may  be  saiil  to  furnish  a  clue— a 
reasonable  and  natural  clue — to  the  latter.^ 

The  doctrine  of  constructive  notice  applies  with  peculiar 
force  where  the  court  is  satisfied  that  a  man  has  desi<;nedly  al>- 
stained  from  inquiry  for  the  very  purpose  of  avoiding  knowl- 
edge. AVilful  ignorance  is  not  to  be  distinguished,  in  its 
equitable  consequences,  from  actual  kuijwledge.^     If,  liowever, 

•  riumb  r.  Flintt,  2  Anst.  438,  per  C.  *  Birdsall   v.  Russell,  2  Tiff.   (AmtT.) 

B.  Eyre ;    llowilt  r.  Looscmore, '.»   lla.  250. 

4.'i5,)<fr  Turner,  L.  J. ;    Kspin   c.  Tcm-  'Jones    v.    Sniitli,   1  Ila.   TiS,    1  Ph. 

berton,  3  D.  (t  J.  ri51,;/or  Lord  Chelms-  244;    Owen  v.   Iloinan,    4  II.  L.  l''J7, 

ford.  1U35. 


*  Davis  r.  Bi^lcr,  02  Pcnn.  243  ;  Harris  r.  Carter,  3  Stew.  233 ;  ninds 
c.  Vattier,  1  McLean,  110;  Pearson  v.  Daniel,  2  Dev.  &  Bat.  Eq.  3(30; 
Lasselle  v.  Burnett,  1  Bluckf.  loO;  Cotton  v.  Hart,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  50. 

The  principle  of  the  doctrine  of  constractive  notice  is,  that  where  a 
person  is  al)OUt  to  perform  an  act  by  which  he  has  reason  to  believe  that 
the  rights  of  a  third  party  may  be  affected,  an  inquiry  into  the  fact  is  u 
moral  duty  and  diligence  an  act  of  justice.  Hence  he  proceeds  at  hia 
peril  when  he  omits  to  inquire,  and  is  then  chargealde  with  a  knowledge 
of  all  the  facts  which,  by  inquiry,  he  might  have  ascertained.  This 
neo-lcct  is  followed  by  all  the  consequences  of  bad  faith,  and  he  loses  tLe 
protection  to  which  his  ignorance,  had  it  not  proceeded  from  neglect, 
woulil  have  entitled  him.  Tiic  rule  is  the  same  in  courts  of  law  or  ojuity, 
and  in  botli  tlie  term  notice  must  receive  the  same  interpretation.  It  must 
either  l>e  limited  to  strict  knowledge  which  is  derived  from  positive  infor- 
mation, or  must  be  extended  to  that  which  the  law  imputes  to  him  who, 
having  reason  to  believe  or  suspect,  neglects  to  inquire.  Pringle  r.  Philips, 
5  Sandf.  157. 

The  pre.'iuniption  of  notice  which  arises  from  proof  of  that  degree  of 
knowledge  which  will  put  a  party  upon  inquiry,  is  not  a  presumption  of 


•j:{S 


riiAi  i»  I  ION    iiiinn  i'ai;tii:s. 


a  nmn  abstain  from  iin|iiiry  wlicro  iiitiuirv  oiiu^Iit  to  liavc  ln-t-n 
Made,  it  is  iimiiatorial  that  tlio  lu-i^loct  to  make  iii<iuirv  may 
not  liavo  j>rocrc'<k'tl  iVom  any  wish  to  aviiiil  knowledge.  It 
may  lie  that  incjniry  miglit  not  have  hroiight  out  tlie  truth  ; 
hut  a  man  wlio  abstains  iVoni  inquiry  where  ini|uirv  ought  to 
have  been  made,  cannot  he  heard  to  say  so  and  to  rely  on  his 
ignorance.*  *  In  the  absence  of  intjuiry,  where  in(|uiry  ouglit 
to  have  been  made,  the  court  is  bound  to  assume  that  the  per- 
son from  whom  incpiiry  shouhl  have  been  made  would  liavo 
done  what  it  was  liis  duty  to  do.^  A  man  cannot  escape  being 
tixcd  witii  constructive  notice  by  not  using  tlie  ordinary  cau- 
tion of  employing  a  solicitor  to  protect  liis  interest.  It"  a  man 
emjdoys  no  sobeitor  he  will  be  held  to  have  exactly  the  same 
kn<»wledgc,  and  will  be  liable  to  the  san^e  extent  as  if  he  had 
em}>loyed  a  solicitor.^ 

If  mere  want  of  caution  as  distinguished  from  gross  and 
culpable  negligence  is  all  that  can  lie  im]»uted  to  a  man,  the 
doctrine  of  constructive  notice  will  not  ai)ply.*  The  doctrine 
does  not  go  to  the  extent  of  fixing  a  man  with  such  knowledge 
as  he  might  by  the  exercise  of  extreme  and  extraordinary  cau- 
tion have  obtained.  A  man  is  in  ikj  case  bound  to  use  every 
exertion  to  obtain   information.      The  want,   indeed,  of  that 

'  .Tones  r.   Smitli,  1    Ila.    4:: ;  West  t>,  *  Kennedy  r.  nrcen.  3  M.  .t  K.  f<99; 

Ueid,    2    Iln.    24 n  ;    Maitland  c.    IJnck-  Ilnrrison   r."Gm'.st,  (i  D.  M.  it  (J.  428,  8 

house.   17  L.  J.  <'1l    121  ;  Jc.nws  v.  Wii-  11.  L.  4H1. 

li  am  It,  24  U'miv.  47;  Mayor  c»f  IWrwic  k  '  .lom-s  i:  Smitli,   1  Hh.  .'•.'»;    West  v. 

r.  Murrnv.  7  D.  M.  A-  U.    4'.»7  ;  (Jen.  nil  Hi  id,  2  llu.  2r.i,  2.'.'.»;   Wure  i:  Kjrniont. 

Mc«m    .NuviuMton  Co.   r.    Unit,   C.  C.  H.  4  D.  .M.  tV  (I.  4<lo ;    WiNt.n   r.   Hart,  2 

N.  S.  .'i.Vi.     S.-.-   Farrunl  v.  blaiicliford,  11.  <k  M.  551.     Sec  Doddu  v.  llilLs,  ib. 

I  I».  .1.  d-  S.  Iii7.  420. 

'  Knight  V.  Uoytr,  2  I),  .t  J.  4. Ml. 


l.iw  but  of  fact,  and  intiy  U-  rclmttcd  by  proof  of  (rili;:int  iiujuiry.  Wil- 
liiiiii.xon  r.  IJrown.  \'>  N.  Y.  ;i.')l;  .Mussic  r.  Ciriciiliow,  2  I'at.  A:  Ilcatli, 
2.'«5;  Hoyt  r.  Sluddon.  :t  Hosw.  2<i7. 

♦  Olivtr  r.  riatt,  :\  How.  :j:!;S ;    .IcnkiiM  r.  Kl.lri.lgc,  3  Slury,  lai;    Pit- 
noy  r.  Lcor.nrd,  IBl. 


ruAii)  ri'oN  TiiiKi)  i'.\i:rn:s.  239 

caution  wliicli  a  warv  and  pnidciif  man  nii;^'l»t,  and  proLaLly 
^s■^^u]^\  liuvc  adopted,  is  not  bucIi  nt'<^li^a'nce  as  will  allix  a  party 
with  notice  of  what  lio  might  havt;  ascertainc<l.'  'J'he  mcaiirt 
of  knowledi^o  by  whirh  a  man  will  he  aifcctcd  with  notice 
must  he  means  of  knowled<^^e  which  afe  jtractically  within 
reach,  and  ('f  which,  a  reasonable  man  or  a  man  of  ordinary 
prudence  mii;ht  have  been  expected  to  avail  himself.^  Mere 
suspicion  or  vague  and  indeterminate  rumor  is  not  sufficient  to 
put  a  man  upon  inquiry.^*  There  must  be  a  reasonable  cer- 
tainty as  to  time,  place,  circumstances,  or  persons/  The  ques- 
tion is  not  whether  a  man  had  the  means  of  obtaining,  and 
might  by  prudent  caution  have  obtained,  the  knowledge  in 
question,  but  whether  the  not  obtaining  it  was  an  act  of  gross 
and  culpable  negligence.'' t     Kegligence  supposes  a  disregard 

«  Hill  V.  Simpson,  1  Vis.  109  ;  Whit-  Ilino  v.  Dodd,  2  Atk.  2T5.     See  Central 

brcml  r.  Jordan,  1  Y.  «t  C.  317;    Jones  Kailway  Co.  of  Venezuela  v.  Kisch,  2 

r.  Smith,   1  I'h.   257;    West  v.  Reid,  2  L.  R.  App.  Ca.  112. 

Ha.  250  ;    Ware  i-.  Ei^mont,  4  D.  M.  &  *  Story's  Eq.  Jur.  400;  General  Steam 

C.  400;  Steplienson  v.  Roysc,  5  Ir.  Ch.  Navigation  Co.   v.   Rolt,   0   C.  B.  N.  S. 

401 ;  Ro  National   Life  Assurance  and  05O.     See  P.lacklow  ;•.  Laws,  2  Ila.  48. 

Investment    Association.   31    L.  J.   Ch.  »  Ware  ;•.  E;:;nu.nt,  4  1).  M.  it  (i.  400; 

828.     See  Dawson  r.  rrinco,  2  D.  &  J.  Monteliore  v.  Browne,  711.  L.  241.    See 

41;  Grcensladc  v  Dare,  20  Beav.  284;  Borell  r.  Dann,  2  lla.  440;    Greenslado 

Dudds  V.  Hills,  2  H.  <k  M.  424.  v.   Dare,   20    Beav.    284 ;    Tildesl.-y  v. 

'  Jackson  v.  Rowe,  2  Sim.  <k  St  472  ;  Lodge,   3  Sm.  i  G.  543  ;    Re   National 

Broadbent  v.  Barlow,  3  D.  F.  «fc  J.  570.  Life  Assurance  and  InvestuicDt  As;0- 

»  Whitfield   V.  Fausset,   1  Ves.  392;  ciation,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  828. 


♦  Wilson  r.  McCuUouirh,  23  Pcnn.  440  ;  Lamont  r.  Stimson,  5  Wis.  443 ; 
Colquitt  r.  Thomas,  8  Geo.  258. 

Circumstances,  sufiicicnt  to  raise  suspicion,  are  constructive  notice. 
Bunting  r.  Ricks,  2  Dev.  «fc  Bat.  Eq.  130. 

A  rumor  is  notice  if  it  turns  out  to  be  correct,  for  it  is  sufficient  to  put 
tlie  party  upon  incjuiry.     Benzoin  v.  Lenoir,  1  Dev.  Eq.  225. 

Althoui,'h  the  party  whose  interest  would  prompt  him  to  misrepre- 
sent, asserts  that  an  incumbrance  has  been  paid  olT  or  discharireJ.  without 
fiirnishinc  any  proof  whatever,  or  referring  to  any  oircumstancta  in  sup- 
port of  his  assertion,  the  purchaser  wlio  fails  to  make  further  inquiry  will 
nevertheless  be  guilty  of  such  a  degree  of  negligence  that  he  will  be  con- 
bidered  as  having  notice.     Rice  r.  McDonald,  C  Md.  403. 

+  Wison  r.  Wall,  G  Wall.  83;  Woodworth  v.  Paige,  5  Ohio  St.  R.  70  ; 
Briggs  c.  Taylor,  28  Vt  180. 


•210 


FHAin  ri'ON   riiii:i)  r\i:Tirs. 


of  sonic  fart  kiu'Wii  to  a  iiiaii  wliicli  at  Ua.-t  indicates  tlie 
oxistoncr  t'f  that  fact,  notice  of  wliicli  the  c.iiirt  imputes 
to  him.*  Tliere  is  often  mncli  dilliculty  in  dniwini;  the  lino 
between  the  (U\i;ree  of  ne<;h"i;ence,  which  shall  he  j^ros.s  ne^li- 
irenee.  an<l  that  mere  want  of  caution  which,  in  the  ahscnee  of 
iVaml.  (hn'S  n(»t  amount  to  negliijence  in  the  lepil  sense  of  the 
term.  No  general  rule  can  be  lai<l  down  which  shall  i^overn 
all  cases.     Each  case  must  (lei)end  on  its  own  circumstances.'* 

It  a  man  has  actual  notice  that  the  jtroperty  in  (juesfion  is 
in  fact  charf^^cd,  encumhcred,  or  in  some  way  aifecte<l,  or  has 
actual  notice  of  facts  raisini;  a  ]>resum|»tion  that  it  is  so,  he  is 
bound  in  etjuity  with  constructive  notice  of  all  facts  and  instru- 
ments, t(»  a  knowledi^e  of  which  he  would  have  been  led  by  an 
inquiry  after  the  charge,  incumbrance,  or  other  circumstance 
aftcctinir  the  property  of  wliidi  hi'  had  actual  notice.^ f 

AVhere,  acconliniily,  a  man  has  notice,  whet  her  by  recital, 
description  of  parties,  or  otherwise,  of  an  instrument,  which 
from  its  nature  must  form,  directly  or  presumptively,  a  link  in 
the  title,  or  is  told  at  the  time  that  it  does  so,  he  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  exaiuiued  it,  and  therefore  to  have  notice  of  all 


»  WpBt  V.  ReiJ.  2  Iln.  210,  259.  See 
Grcentiladc  v.  Dnn-,  20  lU-iiv.  'IHi. 

'  JoiK's  ('.  Sinitli.  1  llii.  55;  WcBt  ti. 
Ilcitt,  2  lift.  21'.';  Waro  i:  K;^iont,  1  1). 
.M.  d:  (1.  li.O;  C'olvcr  v.  Fincli,  5  II.  L. 
905;  I'erry-llcrrick  »•.  AttwootI,  2  I),  tt 
J.  21.     Sc'c  aa  U)  lu'^^lij^i-iici',  sujint,  pp. 

i4t».  in. 

»  1  Ho.  ri5.  prr  Wi^jnim,  V.-C. ;  7  H. 
L.  2'i2,  ftr  honl  ('lii'lin''foril.  Seo 
Duwuea   r.    rower,    2  iJa.   tk   Dc.  493; 


Grant  v.  Canipbtll,  6  Pow.  2.10;  Nce- 
Bom  f.  C'lJll•k^^Jll.  2  Iln.  lt'>;{;  Wi-.st.  i-. 
Ki'ul,  ;//.  2J'.t;  Att.-(;fn.  r.  Flint.  4  Ha. 
147;  Frail  c.  Klli.f,  liV  lU-av.  35(»;  Jit 
IJrif^ht'H  Trusts,  21  IJoav.  4:{t»;  C'ldcs  v. 
Sims,  5  1).  .M.  it  <;.  1  ;  Wdchmnn  v. 
Coventry  I'nion  Uank.  S  W.  K.  720; 
Jay  >■.  Kitliartl>«>n,  ;{<i  Doav.  5<\:{ ;  C«'X 
I'.  Covcuton.  ;U  Itcav.  USS ;  Locke  ». 
J'nsi-..tt,;{2  Hoiiv.  261  ;  Lcif^li  r.  Lloyd, 
2  D,  J.  «t  S.  330. 


♦  Lowrj-  r.  Brown,  1  C"ol<L  -ITjO;  Doyle  r.  Tciir,  4  Brnni.  203. 

t  Skccl  r.  Hprakir,  H  Vu'im;  1K2;  Hoherttt  r.  Ht.inton,  2  Miinf.  129; 
IV)wnn  c.  AdninB,  1  Smnl.  A:  Miir.  Ch.  45;  I'oulot  r.  Johncon,  SS  Geo.  403; 
Mav(iel<l  r.  Avrritt,  11  Tix.  MO;  Ciirrcns  r.  Ilarl,  Ilnnlin,  37. 

A  dfffc-tivc  «lrr«I  Ih  notice  of  all  fraud  countrlcd  with  its  cxccutioa 
Hmith  r.  Hhanc,  1  McLean,  22. 


FRAUD   ri'ON    TlllKI)    rAKTlKH. 


L'll 


instruments  or  facts  to  wlilcli   an  cxaiiiiiiatioii  wcjiild  Iia\c  lol 
liiiii.^ 

A  pnrcliascr,  nccordiiiu'-ly,  -who  lias  actual  notice  of  a  <lcci|, 
is  Itound  l»_v  all  its  contents,^ ''•' and  lias  notice  of  all  (Mjuitics 
sjtrini,dni,'  out  of  the  defd,"f  and  of  mII  instruments  to  which 
an  e.xannnation  ot  the  deed  would  have  led  liini;*;}:  even 
altliouf^h  such  instruments  arc  not  actually  recited,  hut  there 
is  only  a  recital  that  the  property  is  subject  to  limitations 
which,  in  fact,coi-res])ond  with  tlu-  limitations  thereby  created.' 
If  the  deed  under  which  he  takes  title  be  a  settlement,  ho 
takes  with  notice  of  all  equities  springing   out  of  the  settle- 


*  Snrman  v.  Barlow,  2  Eden,  Iftl ; 
Shcliliiii  V.  Cox,  if).  221;  llamilt'in  w. 
Royse,  2  Sch.  A  Lcf.  32(5;  Taylor  v. 
Baker,  5  Pri.  3ut) ;  Jones  »>.  Smitli,  1 
I'll.  253  ;  West  v.  Ueid,  2  Ila.  241).  See 
Moor  V.  Bennett,  2  Cli.  Ca.  240;  Bath 
and  Monta;;iie's  Case,  3  (  li.  Ca.  110; 
Mcrtins  r.  JoHilVe,  Ainh.  311;  IMunib 
r.  Flintt,  2  Anst  432;  Taliner  v. 
Wlie.lcr,  2  Ba.  ife  I'o.  31  ;  Kyre  !-. 
DiJpliin,  ib.  2'.tn;  Jlalpiis  v.  Ack"land,3 
Russ.  273;  Davi;?  v.  Thomas,  2  Y.  <t  C 
234;  Roddy  v.  Williams,  3  J.  ifc  L.  1  ; 
Steadman  r.  I'oole,  16  L.J.  Ch.  349; 
Hope  V.  Liddell,  21  Beav.  183;  Cox  v. 


Coventon,  81  Beav.  378 ;  Clements  v. 
W'elles,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  200. 

"  Tanner  v.  Florence,  1  Ch.  Ca.  2')0  ; 
Taj'lor  V.  Stibbert,  2  Ves.  Jr.  437  ;  Nee- 
som  I'.  Clarkson,  2  Ila.  173. 

'  Hamilton  v.  Royse,  2  Sch.  &  Lef. 
326  ;  Ipiit  see  LI.  <k  6.  264,  per  Lord  St. 
Leonards,  Sug.  V.  &  V.  I'l. 

*  Coppin  V.  Ferny  hough,  2  Bro.  C.  C. 
201 ;  Bisco  v.  Earl  of  Banbury,  1  Ch. 
Ca.  287,  2'.tl;  Tanner  i'.  Florence,  ib. 
250,  260 ;  Daviea  if.  Thomas,  2  Y.  &.  C, 
234. 

'  Necsom  i'.  Clarkson,  2  Ila.  163. 


*  Wormlcy  r.  TVomiley.  8  Wheat.  421  ;  Johnston  r.  Gwathmcy,  4  Litt 
317;  Cbcv  v.  Calvert,  Walker,  54;  Oliver  v.  Piatt,  3  How.  333;  Ncale  c. 
Haythrop,  3  Bland,  o51  ;  Christmas  r.  Mitchell,  3  Ired.  Eq.  53o;  Mason  r. 
Paine,  Walker's  Ch.  453. 

t  Hackwith  x.  Dawson,  I  Minn.  235  ;  Rutter  c.  Barr,  4  Ohio,  446  ;  Van 
Dom  r.  Kobinson,  1  Green,  256;  Gordon  r.  Sizcr,  39  Mi^^s.  805;  Griffith  r. 
Griffith,  1  Iloff.  Ch.  153 ;  Ropers  v.  Jones,  8  K  H.  2G4. 

X  Chew  r.  Caloitt,  1  Walk.  54;  Ncale  r.  Haythrop,  3  Bland,  551  ;  Kerr 
c.  Kitehen,  17  Penn.  433;  Johnson  r.  Thweatt,  18  Ala.  741;  Waiks  v. 
Cooper,  24  Miss.  208;  ]SIeRimmer8  r.  ilartin,  14  Tex.  318. 

A  purchaser  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  qualifications  in  the  power  of 
attorney  of  an  agent  from  whom  he  purchases.  Morris  r.  Terrell,  2  Rand. 
6  ;  Graves  v.  Graves,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  165. 

The  doctrine  of  constructive  notice  has  no  reference  to  controversies 
between  vendor  and  vendee  in  relation  to  their  own  rights.  Champlin  r. 
Laytin,  6  Paige,  189. 


242  rUAii)  I  rt)N   iiiikii  i'ai:tii:s. 

iiu'nt.*  Xotico  of  a  ]>(>stmipti;il,  ;m<l  ;ij»]>;irriifly  voliiiitarv, 
setlK'Uioiit  a;;ri'(.'iiu'nf.  is  not  ire  <>1'  the  aiitcnui>tial  si'ttleniont 
oil  wliicli  it  is  rouiultMl.'  S(»  alxi  iintici'  nf  an  ciiuitaMe  claim, 
as  aUVctiiii;  an  unspt'cifuMl  jxtrtioii  of  the  j»rt>i>('rty,  is  notice  of 
the  claim  as  in  fact  atlcctin^  the  entirety.'  If  tlic  deed  nnder 
whidi  lie  takes  title  shows  that  there  are  incumhrances  affect- 
ing the  property  to  which  tlio  deed  relates,  ho  takes  with 
notice  of  all  such  incumhrances.*  In  Peto  r.  1 1:niiiiu»nd,' the 
]»urchaser  of  land  from  the  allottees  of  a  l>uildini^'  society,  who 
had  not  inipiired  for  the  conveyance  of  the  land  to  the  trustees 
of  the  society,  was  held  bound  not  only  l>y  the  notice  of  the 
deed,  but  also  by  what  would  have  certainly  been  told  him,  if 
he  had  in<|nired  fur  the  deed,  namely,  that  the  deed  had  been 
retained  by  the  ]>arty  who  had  sold  the  land  to  the  trustees,  as 
au  equitable  mortgage,  with  a  covenant  from  the  trustees  to 
convey  the  legal  estate  to  him,  if  required.  So  also  if  a  man 
l)urcliases  from  a  seller  whose  conveyance  was  "subject  to  all 
the  mortgages  and  charges  aft'ecting  the  same,"  he  will  be 
bound  by  a  ])rior  dcj)osit  of  the  deeds  relating  to  a  jxtrtion  of 
the  estate  of  which  he  had  not  notice,  although  there  were 
other  charges  of  which  he  was  informed,  which  satislied  the 
words,  "  mortgages  and  charges.''  ®  A  prospectus,  however, 
of  a  company,  mentioning  an  act  of  I'arliament,  in  which  act 
a  deed  of  settlement  is  recited,  is  not  of  itself  sullicient  to  lix 
any  person  reading  the  i)ros])ectus  with  constructive  notice  of 
the  contents  of  the  dee<l.  To  hold  that  he  mms  would  be 
carrying  the  doctrine  of  constructive  notice  too  lar.' 

JSo  also  notice  of  a  lease  is  notice  of  all  its  cttntents."     If  a 
]iurchascr  luus  notice  that  property  is  held   un<ler  a  lease,  ho 

»  ITamilton  ».   RoyBo,   2   8cli.  «t  Lcf,  •  30  Honv,  10.%. 

S2r..  •  JoncM  ii.  WiHinm«,  2  J  Hcnv.  47. 

•  FiTHirn  I'.  Hi'Trv,  2  Vi'rn.  Its  J.  '  AV  .Niitionnl  Ansurnnco  Aasociation, 

•  AU..';.n.  «•.  Kliiit,  -I  Mn.  117.  !•»  W.  K.  ft  IN. 

•  MonU-lK.re  v.  Hrowiii'.  7  IL  L.  IJI 1  ;  "  Hall  v.  Srnilli.  I  i  Vi"«.  42rt  ;  Walter 
but  set-  Siig.  V.  «k  r.  777.  f.  .Muiuido,    1   J.  d:  \V.    Idl  ;  .Smith   v. 


ri:Aii»  ri'oN  tiiiim)  i'.\Krii:s.  21.'* 

cannot  ohjcct  that  liu  liad  no  iiuticu  of  any  jmrticnlar  covenant 
tluTcin  cont.iiniMl.*  The  oiiil>-<ion  on  tlie  juirt  of"  the  vc'n(h»r 
to  btatu  unusual  covenants  in  the  i)articuhirs  of  sale,  does  not 
affect  tlie  title;'*  nor  is  it  a  misrepresentation,  although  the 
value  of  the  premises  may  he  lessened  l>y  such  covenants."  In 
a  case  where  tlie  conditions  of  sale  were  silent  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  covenants,  and  required  that  the  purchaser  should 
covenant  Mith  the  ven<h)r  for  the  performance  of  the  covenants 
and  conditions  in  the  lease,  a  covenant  in  the  lease  against 
carrying  on  certain  specified  trades,  "  or  any  other  noisome  or 
otiensive  trade,"  was  held  to  be  no  oLjectiou  to  the  title.*  So 
also  a  clause  against  alienation  without  the  lessor's  consent 
was  held  to  he  no  objection  in  the  lease  of  a  house,  at  least  in 
or  near  London.^ 

A  man  who  wishes  to  protect  himself  against  unusual  or 
particular  covenants,  should,  before  purchasing,  inquire  into 
the  covenants  aiul  stipulations  of  the  original  lease,  so  as  to 
know  precisely  the  terms  on  which  the  pro])erty  is  held.'  If 
there  be  net  misrepresentation  by  the  vendor,  the  ]»nrclia.-cr  is 
bound  by  the  contents  of  the  lease;'  but  if  there  be  mis- 
representation, so  that  the  acutcness  and  industry  of  the  pur- 
chaser is  set  to  slec]),  and  he  is  induced  to  believe  the  contrary 
of  what  is  the  real  state  of  the  case,  the  vendor  is  in  such  case 
bound  by  the  misrepresentation.^  If,  for  instance,  the  terms 
of  a  particular  covenant  turn  out  to  be  of  a  much  more 
stringent  description  than  they  were  represented  to  be,  there 
is  fraud.^ 

Cnpron,  7  ITa.  191 ;  Dawes  v.  Betta,  12  *  Grosvcnor  t».  Green,   28  L.  J.  Cb. 

Jur.  70Vt;  Lewis  v.  Rond,  IS  Ueav.  85;  173. 

Parker  i-.  Wlivte,  1  II.  it  M.  lt)7  ;  I'lem-  *  Stran^rwaTS  v.  Bishop.  20  L  T.  120. 

eiits  I'.  Wulk-'si,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  200;   but  see  '  Tope  c   (iarlaml.   4    Y.    A:   C.   ;^94  ; 

Martin  i'.  Cotter,  3  J.  *$:  L.  5U6, /»<•>•  Lord  Martin  v.  Cotter,  3  J.  tk  L.  5titj  ;  CuUea 

St.  Leonards.  v.  O'.Meara,  L.  II.  Ir.  2  C.  L.  603. 

'  Jf>.  '  pope  V.  Garland,  4  Y.  A-  C.  394 ; 

"  Pope  V.  Garland.  4  Y.  <.tC.  394.  Spunner  v.  W.-dsh,  lo  Jr.  Kq.  4<X). 

'  Spunner  n.  Walsh,    10  Ir.  Eq.  3S6,  '  Pope  v  Garland.  4  V.  «fc  C.  394. 

11  Ir.  Eq.  r.9!:!.  »  Fiiijlit  i-.  Dooth,  1  Bing.  N.C.  377; 


244  rPvAin  ivi-^y:  nniM)  r\in'n:s. 

The  riili'  that  iiotici'  t>\'  a  Kmsu  is  m it  ice  i>i'  its  contouta 
applies  to  tin"  case  of  sales  uinKr  a  tKcivi',  as  wi-li  as  to  tho 
ca5e  of  sales  out  of  court.' 

nioiii;h  notice  of  a  lease  is  notice  of  its  contents,  the  court 
may,  on  the  aj»)»lication  for  specilic  ])erfonnanc  •,  decline  to 
«;rant  sjH'cilic  |ierl"(innaiice  of  a  lease  containing  covenants  of 
an  unusual  natiiri',  if  the  ]»ers(»n  ufjainst  mIioui  the  relief  is 
P(»u<rht  hail  no  reasonahle  means  of  ins[>ectin_i;  the  original 
lease,  or  knowiui^  its  contents.'^  If,  however,  he  has  had 
reasonable  means  of  inspcctinrif  the  lease,  specific  performance 
will  be  decreed,'  althou:,di  he  may  have  intended  to  api>ly  the 
property  to  a  }>urpose  whicli,  as  it  turnctl  out,  was  prohibited.* 
It  is  immaterial,  in  such  case,  whctlicr  or  nut  the  vendor  knew 
the  purcha-ser's  intention.' 

So,  also,  and  upon  the  same  ]trincii»le,  where  a  man  is  of 
right  in  ])ossession  of  corixn'cal  lu'rcilitainents,  he  is  entitled 
to  impute  knowledge  of  that  possession  to  all  who  deal  for  any 
interest  in  the  property,  and  persons  so  dealing  cannot  be 
heard  to  deny  notice  of  the  title  under  which  the  possession  is 
held;'*  nor  is  it  necessary  that   such  possession  should  be 

Van  V.  Corpc,  3  M.  «t  K.  '2C0,  sujini,  p.  *  MorK-y  v.  Clavcring,  29  Ronv.  84. 

92.  *  J''- 

'  Spunncr  v.  Wnlsli.  10  Ir.  T:.|.  38fi,  •  Taylor  v.  StU>1»ort.  2  V.-s.  Jr.  4.'?7 

»  llanliury   v.   Litililit-l.l.   2    M.  <k  Iv.  Croftoii  v.  Orriisl.y.  2  Sell.  A  Lcf.  B83 

C2!»;  Fli:;lit  r.  Hart.Mi,  3  M.  .t  K.  2S2  ;  r..w.ll   »-.    l)i!l.in*  2   Ha.   ct    lie.    416 

Kfltliorp"-  f.  H.'lirate,  1  Coll.  '.^n:!;  .Miir-  (otchwcxmI  ,■.  IJairstow.  5  L.  J   Ch.  N 

tin  r.  (-'olt<T.  3  J.  it  L.  .'.07  ;   Willimns  c.  S.    17'.»;    .I<«iic3    v.    Sniitli.    1    Ha.    CO, 

Livc'cy.  18  IJcav.  2<»();   Hniintit  v.  .Mor-  Kaihy  v.  Kiiliardsun,  ".t  Ha.  731  ;   Att- 

ton,   3".Iur.   X.  S.  llyS;  Darlington  v.  (u-n.  r.  St<|ilu'ns.  1  K.  it  J.  750;  Ilolmea 

Ilainillon.  Kny.  ri.'.O.  v.  rowtU,  8  D.  M.  it  G.  680. 
•Smith  r.  e'ui.roii,  7  Hn.  I'.'l. 


♦  Harris  r.  Carter,  3  Stew.  23:J ;  Biickin^'hara  r.  Smith,  10  Ohio,  288; 
Patten  r.  HollidayHlmrfj,  10  IViin.  200;  Hardy  r.  Summers,  10  G.  &  J.  UIO  ; 
Ilanly  r.  Morm-,  :{2  M«'  2H7;  HukIich  r.  United  Stute.s  4  Wall.  232  ;  More- 
land  r.  LemaBtcr,  4  Illackf.  IWI ;  Lamlis  r.  Bnint,  10  How.  875;  Lea  e. 
Polk  Cdunty  CnpiKT  Co.,  21  How.  lUO ;  Griswold  r.  Smith.  10  Vt.  452; 
Morgan  r.  .Morgan,  3  Stew.  3s;j ;  Walker  r.  (tilhert,  1  Trecm.  Ch.  85; 
Jenkins  r.  Bodlcy,  1  Smcd.  iV:  .Mar.  Ch.  338 ;  Witter  r.  Hightower,  0  Smcd. 


riiAii)  rroN  tiiii;i)  i'Aiiiii;s.  'jl.') 

COTitinually  visililc,  itr  actively  asscM-fed.  If  a  man  lias  orico 
rccc'ivt'd  rii^rlit.iil  possession  of  land,  he  may  go  to  any  distance 
from  it  witliout  .iiitlioii/.jiiir  any  servant,  or  ai^ont,  or  other 
j)erson,  to  enter  ii]i(iii  it.oi-  ].iuk  after  it,  may  leave  it  for  yea iv- 
iincultivated  and  unused,  may  set  no  mark  of  ownerslii])  u|m>ii 
it,and  his  possession  may  nevertheless  continue,  at  h-ast  unless 
his  conduct  atl'ord  evidence  of  intentional  abandonment.  A  man 
ulio  knows,  or  cannot  l»i'  lieai^l  to  deny  tliat  he  knows,  another 
to  l)C  in  possession  of  a  cei'taiii  jjroperty,  cannot  for  any  civil 
purpose,  as  ati^ainst  him  at  least,  be  licard  to  deny  having 
thereby  notice  of  the  title,  or  alleged  title,  under  which,  or  in 
respect  of  which,  the  former  is  or  claims  to  be  in  that  posses- 
sion.' AVhere,  accordingly,  the  purchaser  of  mines  took 
possession  under  the  agreement  for  })urchase,  without  any 
conveyance,  it  was  held  that  a  subsequent  purchaser  of  land, 
without  any  exception  of  mines,  took  with  notice  of  the 
agreement.' 

•  Holmes  v.  Powell,  8  D.  M.  A-  G.  5&0.  *  Ilolmos  v.  rotrcll,  8  D.  M.  <t  G.  580. 


&  Mar.  345 ;  Smith  r.  Shane,  1  :^IcLean,  23 ;  Grimstone  v.  Carter,  3  Paige, 
421 ;  Diehl  r.  Page,  2  Green's  Ch.  143  ;  Baldwin  v.  Johnson,  Saxton,  441  ; 
Knox  V.  Thompson,  1  Litt.  350  ;  Brown  r.  Anderson,  1  Mon.  193  ;  Johnston 
r.  Glancey,  4  Blackf.  04. 

In  tlii^;  conntry,  where  the  registration  of  deeds  as  matters  of  title  is 
universally  provideil  for,  courts  of  equity  will  not  enlarge  the  doctrine  of 
constructive  notice,  nor  follow  English  cases,  except  with  cautious  atten- 
tion to  their  application  to  the  circumstances  of  our  country,  and  to  the 
structure  of  our  laws.     Flagg  v.  Mann,  2  Sumner,  4y6. 

Possession  is  not  evidence  of  notice,  unUss  that  possession  was  known 
to  the  purchaser,  nor  can  it  be  conclusive  if  it  be  known ;  and,  therefore, 
is  not  equivalent  to  recording.  It  is  at  most  implied  notice,  which  may 
be  rebuttccL  Uarris  r.  Arnold,  1  R.  I.  126 ;  Vaughan  t.  Tracey,  23  Mo. 
415 ;  newes  r.  Wiswall,  8  Greenl.  94  ;  Emmons  r.  Murray,  16  N.  II.  385. 

The  notice  is  merely  an  inference.  It  may  not  arise  in  some  cases  ;  ii 
may  be  repelled  in  others ;  and  in  others  it  may  be  restricted  to  some 
particular  title.  The  rule,  like  all  rules  of  circumstantial  evidence,  mu>t 
be  governed  by  the  particular  circumstances  of  each  case,  and  have  a 


240  rnAin  ii'on   tiiikh  rAHTir.'^. 

If  thiTc  1k'  a  ttiKUit  ill  possession  ft"  Ian. 1,  a  pnrc-ha<^cr  ia 
KmuuI  l.y  all  the  iMjuitics  which  the  tenant  conhl  enforco 
a^inst  the  vcn<lor,  and  tlic  i-qnity  o\'  tho  tenant  extend-s  not 
onlv  to  interests  ec»nnected  with  his  tenancy,  as  in  Taylor  v. 
Stibbert,*  bnt  also  to  interests  under  collateral  aj^'reenicnts,"  the 
principle  heini;  the  same  in  both  eiiacs,  namely,  that  the  pos- 
session of  the  tenant  is  notice  that  he  has  sonio  interest,  in  the 
land,  and  that  a  purchaser  havin;;  notice  of  that  fact  in  bound 
either  to  incpiire  what  the  interest  is,  or  to  /,'ivo  effect  to  it 
whatever  it  maybe.""  If  the  tenant  has  ev««n  chan^'ed  his 
character  by  having  agrcol  to  purchase  the  estiitc,  bis  posses- 
eion  amounts  to  notice  of  his  equitable  title  as  purchaser.-" 

1  2  Vc8.  Jr.  437.  *  Dnniola  v.  Dnvisnn,  16  Ves.  219;  17 

»  Daniels  v.  Duvison.  Ifi  Vcs.  2J9;  17  Voh.  4:;:{;  Croflnii  «.  (>rrll^l>y.  '2  ."^cli.  it 

Vcs.   433;  Allen  v.   Authony,   1   Mer.  Lef.  .-is:!;  rnwcll  v.  iHllon.  2  Un.  A-  Ik>. 

232  416;  Wiibruiuuu  v.  live.sej,   18  Ucuv. 

•  BnrnlinrtU  v.  Orconshickls,  0  Moo.  20G. 

P.  C.  32;  Knight  v.  Bowyur,  2  D.  4  J. 

46a 


reasonable  opcratioa.     Cook  v.  Travis,  22  Barb.  338 ;  Faust  «.  Smith.  23 

N.  Y.  2.12. 

Possession  under  a  recorded  deed  is  not  notice  of  righta  under  uu 
unrecorded  deed.     Great  Falls  Co.  t».  Worster,  V,  N.  II.  412. 

There  is  no  elRcacy  in  a  possession  which  terminated  before  the  nego- 
tiation that  led  to  the  purchase  commenced.     Wright  ».  Wood,  23  Pcnn. 

120. 

Joint  popsession  by  a  vendor  and  vendee  is  no  notice  of  an  unrecorded 

deed.     Smith  r.  Yule,  31  Cal.  180. 

Posses-sion  by  a  mortgagor  utter  foreclosure  is  not  notice  of  any  secret 
trust  in  his  favor.     Surmberger  o.  Webster,  1  Clark,  IHS. 

Possession  is  notice  to  judgment  creditors  of  the  vendor.  Massey  r. 
Mcllwain,  2  Hill's  Ch.  421  ;  Muconc.  Bheppard,  2  Humph.  835;  Hackwith 
r.  Damson,  1  Mon.  235. 

•  Di^brow  r.  .Ion«s,  Harring'sCh.  48;  McMechon  r.  GrifTini;.  8  Pick.  1 1S». 
Possession  tjy  u  tenant  is  not  notice  of  the  landlord's  title.    Smith  «  Dall.  13 

CaL  510. 

Th<'  possession  of  a  cestui  que  truH  is  not  const nictive  notice  of  the 
legal  title  of  the  tnistce.     Scott  r.  Gallagher,  14  S.  &  It.  \V.V.\. 

The  po^iw-ssioii  of  an  intruder  is  not  notice  of  the  title  of  a  stranger. 
Wright  c.  Wood,  23  Penii.  IJU. 


FRAUD  UPON  Til  1 1: 1)    r'AIlTIIIS.  217 

TIio  principle  that  pussi-ssion  Ity  a  tenant  of  land  is  iifiticu 
of  the  terms  of  his  hi'ldln:^'  applies  to  a  easo  when;  a  man  l>uyH 
property  subject  to  an  eascnicnf.  He  is  hmind  hy  all  flic 
equities  whicli  Ixmiid  his  vunth)rs.'  So  also  when  the  mort- 
gagee of  a  l)uiial  ■^ivtund  had  notice  of  tlie  ])urpoRes  to  wliicli 
it  was  devoted,  lie  was  hehl  bound  by  the  riglit  of  burial,  tem- 
porary or  in  perpetm'ty,  granted  by  his  mortgagor  when  left  in 
possession.^ 

Notice,  however,  of  a  past  tenancy  is  not  notice  of  the  ten- 
ants' equitable  interests,^  nor  when  the  vendor  is  himself  the 
tenant,  and  has  acknowledged  payment  of  the  purchase  money 
l)(,)th  in  the  body  of  the  conveyance  and  by  the  usual  endorsed 
receipt,  is  the  tenancy  notice  of  his  lien  for  any  part  thereof 
which  may  in  tact  remain  unpaid.*  Nor  is  notice  of  a  tenancy 
necessarily  notice  of  the  tenant's  equities  as  between  vendor 
and  purchaser.'*  Nor  is  notice  of  a  tenancy  constructive  notice 
of  the  lessor's  title.®  Nor  M'ill  a  hond  fide  purchaser,  other- 
wise without  notice,  be  affected  by  the  mere  circumstance  of 
the  vendor  having  been  out  of  possession  for  many  years.  A 
purchaser  neglecting  to  inquire  into  the  title  of  the  occupier  is 
not  affected  by  any  other  equities  than  those  Avhich  such  occu- 
pier may  insist  on.  If  a  person  equitably  entitled  to  an  estate 
lets  it  to  a  tenant  who  takes  possession,  and  then  the  person 
having  the  legal  estate  sells  to  a  person  who  purchases  hond 
fide  and  without  notice  of  the  equitable  claim,  the  purchaser 
will  hold  against  the  equitable  owner,  although  he  had  notice 
of  the  tenant  being  in  possession.'  In  all  the  cases  the  pos- 
session relied  on  has  been  the  actual  occupation  of  the  land, 
and  the  equity  sought  to  be  enforced  has  been  on  behalf  of  the 

'  Ilcrvcy  V.  Smith,  1  K  <t  J.  389;  22  *  Nclthorpe  v.  Ilolgatc,  1  Coll.  20.?. 

Bcnv.  AW.  '  Jonos  v.   Smith,  1  lin.  t>3,  ;><t  Wi^- 

■•' Murclnnd  v.  Richardson,  22  Bcav.  ram,  V.-C. ;  Barnhardl  v.  Gruenshiclils, 

696.  9  Moo.  P.  C.  34. 

*  Miles  f.  Langley,  1  R.  ife  M.  39 ;  2  '  Oxwith  v.   Phimmcr,  2  Vcrn.  r>^&; 
R.  «t  M.  •".26.  Bnnihardt  v.  GreeusUields,  9  Moo.  I*.  C. 

*  White  V.  Wakefield,  7  Sim.  401.  34. 


oiS  n:\ri)  rroN  tuikh  rAurii:s. 

party  po  in  ]K)sscssion.' *  Uuf  it  must  hn  reineiuborod  tli.it  l»y 
t/w  jHirty  in  occupation  h  me;nit,  not  incrcly  tlio  jhtsuii  who 
1)V  himself  and  hi^^  hiborcrs  tills  the  <;ruun<l,  but  tho  pcreoii 
who  is  known  to  receivo  the  rents  from  the  person  in  occupa- 
tion.' So  also  notice  of  the  lei^al  estate  hein;;  outstandinf^  is 
notice  of  the  trusts  oii  which  it  is  held;'  and  notice  that  the 
title  deeds  are  in  the  possession  of  a  third  party,  is  notice  of 
any  charge  he  has  ui)on  the  property.* 

So  also,  and  npon  the  same  i)rinciple,  a  person  has  been 
held  to  be  affected  with  notice  of  a  fraud  affecting:  a  deed,  and 
which  the  unusual  manner  in  which  it  was  executed  ought  to 
have  suggested  to  his  solicitor.*  So  also,  if  a  bill  be  accepted 
in  blank,  and  the  acceptor  was  aware  of  the  fact,  there  is  notice 
of  any  fraudulent  use  that  may  have  been  made  of  it.'  So 
also  a  lessee,'  or  a  sub-lessee,  has  notice  of  the  title  of  the  im- 

'  Bnrnlianlt  r.  Grcenshields,  0  iloo.  Sec  Grocnslndo  v.  Dare.  20  Beav.  291  ; 

p  (7   ;m  (ircenrield  t».    Edwanln,   2  D.  J.  «i  G. 

'  kni'ht  V.  Bow7er,   23  Beav.  609,  582;  Sutj.  V.  «fc  P.  77t>. 
640,  eif,  2  D.  «fc  J.  421.  "  Hntcii  v.  Scarles.  24  L.  J.  Ch.  22. 

•Anon.  2  Frccm.  137.  See  sharp  v.  Arbiitlinot,  13  Jiir.  2  IK. 

*  Ilierii  v.  Mill.  13  Ves.  122;  Drj'dcn  '  Att.-(ien.  v.  liaeklinuse.  17  Ves.  293; 

«  Frost,  3M.  «1:  C.  070.  Butler  v.  Lord  l'.)rtarruii,'l(jn,   1   Dr.  6s 

'  *  Kennedy  v.  Green,  3  M.  «t  K.  099  War.  20;  Att.-Gen.r.  ilall.lO  Beov.  388. 


•  Kendiill  v.  Lawrence,  23  Pick.  540;  Holmes  r.  Stout,  2  Stockt.  419; 
Coleniun  r.  Barklew,  3  Dutch.  :JJ7;  Truesdale  r.  Ford,  IH  III.  210;  Ely  r. 
Wilcox.  20  Wis.  523;  Blaukenskip  v.  Douglass,  20  Tex.  225;  Putten  r. 
Moore,  32  N.  II.  382. 

The  holder  of  an  unrecorded  deed  must  show  a  possesslo  pftlis,  an  actual 
Jofti  ^«  po^scHsion  consistent  with  his  written  title;  and  this  |)<)8scssioii 
must  l)c  evidenced  by  an  actual  inclosure,  or  Bomethini;  ctjuivalcnt,  as 
Bhowinj;  the  extent  and  the  fact  of  his  dominion  and  control  of  the  prcm- 
ii>e«.     Ilavrnsp  Dale,  18  Cul.  351). 

Tin-  p<»s.>«ssion  nmst  be  such  an  occupancy  of  the  land  as  will  put  any 
person  upon  intjuiry,  and  indicate  the  party  of  whom  impiiry  is  to  bo 
made.  Green  r.  Drinker,  7  W.  A;  H.  440;  ]{ogers  f.  Jonc-t,  »  N.  11.204; 
Wiirmms  r.  Sprigg,  0  Ohio  St.  R  585. 

1'osxes.sion  is  not  notice,  when  the  purchaser  also  knows  that  tho  pos- 
iiesAor  has  been  in  possevtion  for  huiuc  time  without  claiming  title.  Mat* 
thews  r.  Dcmerritt,  0  Shep.  312. 


FRAUD  uroN  Timci)  rAUTii:s.  241) 

mediate  and  (in  the  case  of  a  sub-lessee)  orif^inal  lessee*  So 
where  a  tiiniily  solicitor,  who  had  jjrepared  a  niarria;;e  settle- 
mont,  became  the  apparent  purchaser  of  the  CHtato  under  a 
iictitious  exercise  of  the  usual  power  <»t'  sale,  and  Hubse<piently 
executed  instruments  purporting  to  vest  the  estate  in  the  hus- 
band, and  tiicii,  as  the  husband's  solicitor,  a])])lied  for  a  loan  on 
morty:a<re,  and  delivered  an  abstract  of  the  title  as  above  re- 
ferred  to  in  the  usual  way,  with  his  name  as  solicitor,  it  was 
held  that  the  i)urchasc'r  had  imjdied  notice  of  his  having  been 
the  solicitor  who  prei>ared  the  settlement,  and  of  the  irregular- 
ity of  the  nominal  purchase.^  So,  a  mortgagee  having  notice 
that  a  bill  mIucIi  formed  part  of  the  consideration  for  the  pur- 
chase of  the  estate  by  the  mortgagor,  remained  unpaid,  has 
been  held  bound  to  inquire  wliethcr  the  vendor  has  any  lien  on 
the  estate,  the  deed  of  conveyance  leaving  the  point  doubtful.^ 
So,  a  purchaser  dealing  with  trustees  for  sale  at  a  time  or  under 
circumstances  suggestive  of  the  probability  of  the  sale  being  a 
breach  of  trust,  is  bound  to  inquire  and  see  whether  any  such 
breach  of  trust  is  in  fact  being  committed.''  So  also  notice  of 
a  deed  is  not  only  notice  of  its  contents,  but  of  the  facts  to  a 
knowledge  of  which  the  insisting  on  its  production  would  have 
necessarily  led.^  So  also  a  man  who  buys  property  from  an 
agent,  with  distinct  notice  that  the  i>arty  with  wliom  he  is 
dealing  is  an  agent,  lias  cast  upon  him  the  liability  of  sustain- 
ing the  transaction  just  as  nmch  as  the  agent  himself.  If  the 
transaction  could  not  be  upheld  by  the  agent,  neither  could  it 
be  supported  by  a  purchaser  from  that  agent,  if  he  deals  with 
him  in  his  character  of  agent.® 

AV^hen,  however,  a  sale  by  fiduciary  vendors  is  apparently 
regular,  a  purchaser  need  not  inquire  into  collateral  questions, 

'  Stwaman  v.  Poole,  6  Ila.  lO:?.     See  *  Stroughill  a.  Anstcy,  1  D.  iL  A  G. 

Cosser  i-.  Collingc,  3  M.  «fe  K.  283.  635. 

'  Uobiuson   v.  Briggs,   1  Sm.    «t    G.  *  Pcto  v.  Ilrtininoml,  30  Beav.  495. 

188.  •  Slolony  v.  Kernan,  2  Dr.  «fc  War.  4a 

*  Frail  v.  Ellis.  IG  Beav.  350. 
17 


-."iO  riiAin  rroN  Tiiir.n  1'aktii:s. 

sucli  ns  tho  iiKulc  ill  whicli  the  saU>  has  ln'i'n  ooiuluctcd,* 
althoiitjli  ]\v  will  l»i'  ;int'ct('«l  with  notice  of  a  hreac-h  of  trust 
clearly  (Icduciltle  tVuni  facts  appearing  in  the  assurance.'  Nor, 
althougli  a  purchaser  of  a  Icjise  is  hound  to  know  from  whom 
the  lessor  derived  his  title,  is  he  alVi'cted  with  notice  of  all  the 
circumstances  under  wliidi  he  so  derived  it.^  Nt>r,  Ht^mhle^  is 
notice  of  a  lease  notice  of  collateral  facts  mentioiu'il  in  the 
lease.*  Nor,  on  the  ])urchase  of  A,  one  of  two  adjoinini; 
estates  belonging  to  the  same  owner,  is  notice  of  building 
covenants  entered  into  by  such  owner  with  a  mortgagee  of  the 
adjoining  estate  B,  notice  of  tlic  expenditure  on  both  estates 
of  money  which,  under  the  covenant,  ought  to  have  been  ex- 
l)cnded  on  1>  exclusively.' 

The  possession  of  a  client's  deeds  by  a  solicitor  is  so  usual, 
and  so  much  in  the  ordinary  course  of  transactions,  that  where 
a  man  purchases  an  estate,  and  is  informed  that  the  deeds  arc 
in  the  hands  of  the  solicitor  of  the  owner  of  the  estate,  there 
is  nothing  which  renders  it  necessary  for  him  to  inquire  under 
what  circumstances  the  solicitor  held  the  deeds.'  AVhen  a 
solicitor  acquires  by  contract  a  ditierent  interest  beyond  what 
his  character  of  solicitor  confers  (such  as  e<iuilable  mortgagee), 
it  is  incambent  on  him  immediately  to  give  clear  and  distinct 
notice  of  such  interest  to  all  persons  in  visible  ownership  of 
the  estate.  Such  a  case  is  not  within  the  ])riiicij»lo  of  the  cases 
in  which  a  i>urchaser  of  land  has  been  held  bouiul  to  in<juiro 
of  the  tenant  in  possession  the  nature  of  his  interest.'' 

The  omission  of  a  purchaser  of  pro])erty  to  inquire  alter 
the  title  deeds  is  gross  negligence,  and  will  affect  him  with 
the  knowledge  which  he  might  have  obtained  upon  iiKjuiry. 

•  See  Bori'U  v.  Dnnn,  U  Ma.  -IKt,  AM,  '  Att-Gm.  i-.  Ulncklunisc,  7  Vcs.  203. 
Pec  Ware  r.  Ejjiiiont,  1  I).  .M.  «t  (i.  * -Sof  l)arlin;;ton  r.  llBinilton.  Kny, 
4G<i.  f'-"'^- 

*  8po  Atl..<»pn,  V.  VMZi'U'r.  <".  l'.<nv.  '  Hnrrytnnii  v.  Collinn,  18  Boav.  19. 
ITiO;  Kir  I'.  I/'jrJ  Dungauuou.  1  \)r.  &.  *  Uor.oii  v.  Wiili.uim,  3  V.  «t  J.  150. 
War.  Wi,  WL  '  ^i. 


FK.vri)  ri'oN'   riiiKiv  i-Ainir.s.  251 

Tlio  possession  of  the  legal  estate  will  iinl  protect  n  man  who 
has  omitted  to  inquire  after  the  title  deed.-.  <tr  \\\u)  ae('(;i>trt  u 
iVivoloiis  excuse  fur  their  nun-production  against  the  claim  of 
an  iuiKiceiit  ])art_v.*  So  also,  a  man  taking  iVuiii  a  vendur  wlm 
lias  not  possession  of  the  deeds,  will  take  Avith  notice  of  any 
claim  which  the  party  in  possession  of  the  title  deeds  has.* 
The  omission,  however,  of  a  purchaser  to  inquire  fur  the  deeds 
will  not  all'ect  him  with  knowledge  of  fraud  committed  by  the 
person  of  whom  he  was  hound  to  make  inquiry.^ 

Though  notice  uf  a  deed  is  notice  of  its  contents,  the  mere 
fact  that  a  man  has  been  witness  to  the  execution  of  a  deed 
will  not  of  itself  fix  him  with  notice  of  the  contents.*  !N^or  is 
notice  of  a  will  passing  all  the  testator's  real  estates  generally, 
and  not  specifically,  notice  of  all  the  particular  estates  which 
the  testator  had  to  pass.'  Nor  if  a  purchaser  has  notice  only 
that  a  draft  of  the  deed  is  prepared,  and  not  that  the  deed  was 
executed,  would  he  be  bound  by  notice,  although  the  deed  was 
actually  executed ;  for  a  purchaser  is  not  to  be  afiected  by 
notice  of  a  deed  in  contemplation.® 

A  mere  statement  that  further  information  is  to  he  had  at 
the  office  of  a  company,  is  not  enough  to  put  persons  upon 
inquiry  whether  statements  put  forward  by  directors  are  true 
or  false.''  Ihit  if  a  man,  on  being  specially  referred  to  another 
for  information,  neglects  to  apply  to  him,  he  will  be  held  to 


'  WortliinEjton   v.   Morsjnn,   16    Sim.  Bozon  v.  Willinms,  8  T.  and  J.  150, 

647;  Tvlce   v.  Webb,  t;  Beav.  ns'i  ;  Al-  supra,  pp.  110,  141. 
leii  V.  Knight,  5  Ha.  272  ;   11  Jur.  527  ;  '  llipkiiis  v.  Amery,  2  Giff.  292. 

llewctt  I'.   L<»)<c!iiorc,  0  Ila.  4  f'J ;  Col-  *  Mocatta   c.  Munratrovil,  1   P.  Wins. 

Ver  V.  Fiacb,  5  II.  L.  >tO.-) ;  TiKlosIoy  v.  30."5 ;  Ik-cla'tt  v.   Conlloy,  1   Bro.  C.  C. 

Lodge,  3  Sm.  <t  G.  o43 ;  BeiTV-IIeriick  S."i7;  RanclifTe  ;•.  Parkins,  6  Dow,  149, 

V.  Attwood,  2  1).  <fc  J.  21 ;  Atterburv  v.  222  ;  ISusr.  V.  it  P.  751. 
Wnllis.  8  D.  M.  d-  G.  454;  Peto  v.  Ham-  '  Panclitle   v.    Parkins,  G  Dow,   149, 

mond,  30  Bcav.  495;   Worinalil  i-.  Mait^  222-224. 

land,    35   L.   J.   Cli.    (59;    Ilopijood   t'.  '  Cctliay  v.    Sydenham,  2  Bro.  C.  C. 

Krnest,  3  D.  .1.  it  S.  IIH, supra,  pp.  140,  391.     Seu  Jones  f.  Suiitli,  1  Ila.  63  ;  I 

141.  Ph.  25f.. 

»  Prvdcn  .'.  Frost,  3  if.  &  C.   070.  '  Smith  v.  Reese  River  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

See  llicrn  f.  Mill,  13  Ves.  122.     Comp.  Eq.  209. 


*J.)*J  ri:\ri»  rrox  timim)  rAirrirs. 

have  notice  of  wli.it  lie  niiixlit  liave  Iranit  iiixiii  ininiiry.*  So 
also  if  a  man.  liaviiii;  n-asonalile  i;r(>iiiiil>  to  suspect  the 
existence  of  n  fact  of  importance,  asks  one  of  tlio  ])artie8  to 
the  transaction,  wli(»  refuses  all  information,  l)Ut  does  not  ask 
other  parties,  Mlmm  he  has  reason  to  helieve  to  he  ahle  and 
willini^  to  i^ive  liiiu  iiit'.»rni:itii>n,  his  i<^noranco  is  willt'nl.'  A 
party  rclyim;  on  his  iirtioranec  of  fact  must  show  not  only  that 
he  had  not  the  information,  l»ut  tliat  ho  could  not  witli  dili- 
gence have  ohtaincd  it.' 

A  man  who  in  dcaliuLr  for  property  is  ti>ld  of  anyfhinij  as 
aflectiui;  the  property,  thoui^h  incorrectly,  can  iii>t  rely  on 
what  is  told  him,  hut  is  hound  to  make  further  inquiry,  and  to 
ascertain  the  exact  truth.*  If  a  man  knows  that  another  has 
or  claims  an  interest  in  ]>roperty,  he,  in  dealin<j^  for  that  prop- 
erty, is  bound  to  inquire  what  that  interest  is,  althoui^h  it  may 
be  inaccurately  described.'  If  a  man  be  told  t.r  has  notice  that 
a  certain  instrument  affects  the  ]>roi)crty  in  (piestion  in  some 
])articular  respect,  lie  will  be  lixed  with  notice  of  its  provisions 
if  it  should  turn  out  to  alfect  the  i)roperty  in  other  respects 
also.'  xSotice  of  a  charge  to  an  imletinite  amount,  although 
the  notice  l»e  inaccurate  as  to  the  particulars,  or  the  extent  of 
the  charge,  is  sufficient  to  i»ut  uj)on  inquiry  a  party  dealing 
for  the  pro])erty  subject  to  the  charge,  and  if  the  actual  charge 
ai>pear  afterwards  to  be  incorrectly  described  in  the  notice,  it 
Ls  nevertheless  sufficient  as  a  ground  for  giving  priority  for 
the  true  amount  nf  the  charge  as  against  the  i>arty  who  re- 
ceived tiie  incorrect  notice,  but  made  no  impiiry.' 

In   Taylor  r.   leaker,*  a   party,  at   the   time  of  making  his 

'  Wn'»<iti  !•.  Wnrin^'.  1.'.  llnv.  l.M.  '  Tuvlur  v.    I^ik.r,  .'>  IVi.  nofi ;  Jnck 

'  I;niiil»ri;;K<'  r.  Mo^h.  :i  .liir.  N.  S.  fiK.  non  r.  Ilowc.  2  Sim.  A  St.  IT.'i ;   Farrow 

•  WiiMHi  c.  Waring',  1.'.  lltiiv.  l.M.  i-.  Kl•t•^,  i    Kiiiv.  IS;  Mildiell   v   Stow. 

*  Wilwm   V.  Hart,  'J.  II.  A  .M   .'iM  ;  L.  nnl,  .'«.'»   L.  .».  Cli.  39».     See  Jonus  v. 
K  1  Cli.  Ajip.  •4i'.:i.    Sc-i-  .loiics  I'.  Sinitli,  Smitli.  1  I'll.  'J.'i."k. 

1   I'h.   'i.'.S.     Comii.  rr   HriglitH  TruHl,  '  (iibsoii  v.  In-jo,  •'■  Iln.  124. 

Ul  r-nv.  430.  '6  I'ri.  3">il. 

•Gibson  V.  In^o,  f.  Ho.  11'.'.  IJI.  ."-oo 
AtL^Gcn.  r.  JyncH,  '.!  .Fur.  '•'•V>') 


lUAl  I)    llMtN     illlKl)    I'AUTIKS.  253 

piirc'haso,  and  licforc  it  was  ina<le,  liad  actual  notice  tliat  a 
certain  j)crs<»n  had  a  judgment  and  warrant  <jf  attcjrncy  wliicli 
affected  the  })iir('liased  estate.  It  turiiiMl  diit,  however,  that  he 
liad  a  niort^'a^'o  and  nut  a  jud::;nient,  and  the  court  held  that 
tlio  purchaser,  havin;^  notice  that  he  had  an  interest  afFectin«:j 
the  projK'rty,  could  not  ward  oii'  the  claim  to  the  incumbrance, 
only  because  the  nature  of  the  claim  was  diifercnt  from  that 
which  the  notice  c(.>n\"cycd  to  liiiu.'  'fhc  j)j-in(ipl(.'  was  carried 
further  in  Penny  v.  AVatts.^  A  man  there,  who  claimed  under 
a  marriage  settlement  as  a  purchaser  without  notice,  had 
notice  before  his  marriage  that  a  legatee  had  given  up  her 
legacy  under  a  will  in  lavor  of  tlie  intended  wife,  to  whom 
the  estate  upon  which  it  was  charged  belonged,  and  which  was 
comprised  in  the  subsequent  marriage  settlement ;  and  had 
also  notice  that  the  intended  wife  liad  in  consequence  devised 
to  the  legatee  a  portion  of  the  estate,  and  that  the  legatee  was 
dead.  This  was  held  by  Lord  Cottcnham  to  be  notice  as  lead- 
ing to  inquiry  of  an  e<piitable  revcrsionai-y  title  in  the  husband 
of  the  legatee  under  a  subsequent  agreement  with  the  lady, 
the  devisor,  before  her  marriage,  to  convey  the  devised  estate 
to  him.  It  has,  however,  been  considered  by  Lord  St.  Leon- 
ards,' and  in  Abbott  v.  Gerahty,*  that  this  case  carries  the 
principle  too  far. 

Though  a  man,  who  has  actual  notice  that  the  property  in 
respect  of  which  he  is  dealing,  is  in  fact  atiected  by  a  particu- 
lar instrument,  is  bound  to  examine  that  instrument,  he  is  not 
bound  to  examine  instruments  which  are  not  directly  or  pre- 
sumptively connected  with  the  title  to  the  property  in  ques- 
tion, merely  because  he  knows  that  they  exist,  and  may  by 
possibility  aft'ect  it.     If  an   instrument   docs  not  necessarily 


•  See  Steadman  v.  Poole,  IG  L.  J.  Cb.  '  Sn?.  V.  d-  P.  766. 

349;  6lln.  XWZ.  *  A  Ir.  Cli.  io. 

"  1  Mac.  ck  G.  150. 


12.")}  ri:.\i  i»  riM)N  TiiiiM)  rAKTins. 

nffcct  tlic  title,  luit  oiilv  may  I'l"  may  not  do  so  aroordiii^  to 
t'ircunistuncc'S,  tin-  I'liii—ion  t<>  oxamiiu-  it  A\ill  imt  fix  a  jiarty 
■with  «;ross  lu'i^lii^oiici',  if  tluTc  is  no  rc'a{>(tn  t«»  Mi|»jtnse  that  ho 
may  have  acted  otlierwise  than  I'airly  in  the  transaction.*  !Nor 
is  notit'c  tliat  certain  circumstances  exist  wliidi  may  hy  possi- 
bility atVcct  till'  I'mpcrty  in  dispute  sutlicient  t<>  put  a  man 
iipi>!i  iiKjuii'v.  it"  111-  apiicar  t<»  have  acti'<l  Ihiily  in  the  transac- 
tion.* A  j)urcliascr,  lor  instance,  Avill  not  he  allected  by  an 
ambiguous  recital,^  or  by  circumstances  inducin<^  merely  a 
suspicion  of  fraud/  or  by  the  ibiual  trust  of  a  term  to  attend 
the  inheritance,  where  no  reference  is  made  to  any  particular 
instrument  or  course  of  limitations; '  so  notice  of  there  being  a 
change  of  solicitors  who  are  professionally  to  re])resent  a  ])ar- 
ticular  interest,  is  not,  in  itself,  notice  of  a  change  in  the 
ownership  of  such  interest;'  nor  is  the  mere  fact  of  a  daughter, 
soon  after  coming  of  age,  giving  securities  to  a  creditor  of  her 
father  in  payment  of  his  debt,  of  itself  a  ground  for  imjtuting 
to  the  creditor  knowledge  of  undue  influence  having  been 
exerted  over  her  by  her  fatlier.'  To  atlect  the  creditor  witli 
notice  of  undue  influence,  it  is  not  enough  to  show  that  ho 
was  aware  of  the  reluctance  of  the  daughter  to  concur  in  the 
security.® 

In  Ilcrvey  r.  Smith,"  the  purchaser  of  a  house  to  which  a 


'  Kcnni'v  I'.  Browne,  :t   Kidir.   I'.  C.  *  M'Qucon  r.  Fnrqulinr,  11  Vos.  482. 

512;   .l«n.-8   f.    Smith.    1    lln.  j:!.  1  IMi.  Sue  D.hI.U  v.  llill.s  li  11.  it  M.  V^i',. 

•-Til ;  W«-ht  r.  llcid.  ti  11(1.  'J 111;  Ware  v.  »  Dart.  V.  «!:  1'.  M'.rt. 

Kirrnont,  I  D.  M.  it  (J.  ICo;  linrnmnn  *  Wi.st  c.  Uoiil.  '2  Ilii.  '210. 

r.  Colliiix,  IH   IW-av.    11;   <ir<'en-<i)i(li'  v.  ■"  TliornhiT  i.  .'^hiunl,    I'J  Ren  v.  1589. 

Ituri-.'lOlU-nv.'iHi;  y.'r  liritrliiVTrust,  Sot*  CoIjIx-U  v.   I!r«>i-k.  '-•(»    Henv.  ft'.»4. 

'.Jl  IJcnv.  •!:!«);   St<'jili<iisoii  v.   HoyHc,  5  Cninp.  Kh|h'V  i'.  Lako.  10  Ha.  -jrtO;  Sor- 

Ir.  (h.  4ul  ;  Cox  f.  OiviMilon,  Ullk-av.  coinbi«    v.    ."^nundiTu,    lU     lienv.    .'IK'i ; 

:j7M;  General  SU-ain  Navipilion  Co.  i'.  HOnloo  v.  Dawaun,  ib.  6ti3.     See  «u/<r<i, 

Uolt.  6  C.  H.  N.  S.  r,M:  iVrrv  ••.  Hoil.  p.  IHO. 

'.i  I).  F.  A  J.  .'IH.     S.o  Jir  Nal'ional  Life  '  Kho«lc«  i-.  Cook.  4  L.  .F.  Cli.  14lt,  2 

A^''^lrnncc  an<l  InvcHtiiii-nt  Co.  HI  L.  J.  Sim.  tt  .^t.  4S8,     S<m'  lilai'kie  v.  I'inrk, 

Ch.  8'iH.  i.'>   lliav.   r.lt.V     Coiiii..   Maitlaud  «.  Ir- 

»  /',.  vin_'.  !.'•  Sim.  441. 

*  \vcnnov  v.   lirowiu-.   a   Ui<!;,'.  1*.  C.  "  Ti  IJcuv.  'i'.CJ. 

r>ia    Bc«»'2  lift.  n:.. 


FKAUD  UrON   TIIIUI)    rAUTlKS.  J.">..» 

wall  having'  fourteen  flues  or  c-ljimncys  in  it  belonged,  twelve 
only,  however,  of  wliicli  were  used  by  the  house,  was  held 
hiMiml  hy  this  fact  to  know  that  the  other  two  niii.-f  have 
been  used  by  his  nei_i,dd)or.  I'ut  tin-  doctrine  of  constructive 
notice  was  carried  too  far  in  that  ease.^ 

Kor  is  a  man  bound  to  examine  a  deed  or  di>cument, 
•which  does  not  necessarily  from  its  very  nature  affect  the 
|)r(i|Mi1y  in  (jucstion,  if  he  be  told  that  it  does  not  affect  it,  and 
he  acts  fairly  in  the  transaction,  and  liclievcs  the  representa- 
tion to  be  truc.^  The  effect,  indeed,  of  what  would  otherwise 
be  notice,  may  be  destroyed  by  misrepresentation.  A  man  to 
whom  a  particular  and  distinct  representation  is  made  is 
entitled  to  rely  on  the  representation,  and  need  not  make  any 
further  iiuiuirv,  althoUi;]i  there  arc  circumstances  in  the  case 
from  whicii  an  inference  inconsistent  M'ith  the  representation 
might  be  drawn,  and  which,  independently  of  the  representa- 
tion, would  have  been  sufficient  to  put  him  upon  inquiry,'  or, 
althouf^h  he  is  told  that  further  information  may  be  had  on  the 
matter  by  making  inquiries  from  a  particular  person,  or  at  a 
particular  place.*  A  man  is  entitled  to  rely  on  the  representa- 
tions of  the  vendor  as  to  the  contents  of  a  deed,  and  is  not 
bound  to  examine  the  deed  itself?  So,  also,  a  man  who  i)ur 
chases  shares  in  a  company  on  the  faith  of  a  prospectus,  may 
rely  on  the  statements  made  therein,  and  is  not  bound  to 
ascertain  whether  they  are  true."  The  mere  fact  that  he  may 
have  attended  a  meeting  of  the  company  is  not  a  sufficient 


"  Sii".  V.  <fr  p.  TC).  *  Grnsvennr  v.   Grccn,  28  L.  .f.  Ch. 

•Jones  .•.  Smitli.    1   Ha.   43,  1    I'lu  1T3;  M'Culloch  v.  Grca;ory,  1  K.  tt  J. 

251;  AV  I5rii:l>f9  Trust,  '11  Benv.  430.  286;    AV  Hriuht's  Trust,  21  Benv.  430; 

'Van    V.    Corpp,    3    M.    &    K.    2C.'.) ;  Cox  v.   Covt-nton,  31  Bejiv.    378;    Ex- 

Fliixht  f.  Barton.  (7>.  28-2 ;  Tope  f.  Gar-  parte    Briu:ir9,   L.    11.    1    Kq.  483.     See 

Inml.  4  Y.  it  C.  3'.t4 ;  Wilson  v.  Short,  0  .iliirtin  v.  t'oUor,  3  J.  <k  L.  finri. 
Ha.  366,  367;   Vignollcs  v.  Bowen,  12  "  Sniitli  r.  Reese  Kiver  . Silver  Mining 

Ir  Kq.  385;  Cox  iC  .Middleton,  2  Drew.  Co..  L.  U.  2  Eq.  264;  blewart'a  Case,  L. 

'20'.\  supra,  pp.  80,  81.  K.  1  Cli.  .\\'\:  574. 

'  .-^niilli   V.   Uo-L-  liiver  Silver  Min- 
ing Co.,  L.  11.  2  ilq.  264, 


256  im:\i  I)  ri'ON    iiiikk  rM;iii>'. 

pronnd  for  lixiiiL'  liim  with  notice  of  tlie  falsity  of  the  ropro- 
eentntioiis  in  the  prosiK't-tus.'  Nor  \vill  a  shardjohU-r  in  a 
con>i>anv  he  alU'ctiMl  witli  knowU'di^'.'  of  the  (li»i-uini'nts  refer- 
red to  in  the  nienioramhini,  or  artich-s  of  association  of  a  com- 
pany, as  to  he  dehai-ntl  from  coiMidainini;  of  any  false  or 
deceptive  statements  which  may  have  heen  ma<k'  au  to  tho 
contents  of  those  documents.'' 

If  a  hoiid ^P't/t'  inquiry  he  made  in  tlie  ])ropi'r  <piarter,  and  a 
rcasonahle  answer  he  i^iven,  a  man  may  rest  satistied  witli  the 
information,  and  need  lutt  make  any  further  inciiiiry.'  A  man, 
for  instance,  \\h'>.  on  tlic  purchase  of  in-ojurty  hond  Jiihy 
inquires  for  the  title  deeds,  is  uot  hound  to  make  further 
inquiry,  if  a  rcasonahle  excuse  is  made  for  their  not  forth- 
comin^^/  So,  also,  if  deeds  are  dep(\<itcd  with  a  man  by  the 
other  jiartv  to  the  transaction,  which  ])ur[iort,  or  are  repre- 
sented to  he  all  the  material  deeds  relatiu'^  to  tlie  estate,  and 
he  honestly  believes  the  representation  to  be  true,  he  is  not 
guilty  of  [,'ross  ne<;li«j^ence,  if  he  abstains  from  further  incpiiry 
on  the  subject.'  The  fact  that  the  person  with  whom  he  is 
dealiuj^',  and  who  makts  the  rci)resentation,  may  be  his  own 
solicitor,  is  immaterial,  if  the  representation  was  honestly  be- 
lieved to  be  true.'' 

A  representation  or  an  answer  to  an  inipiiry  will  not,  how- 
ever, (lis])ense  with  the  necessity  of  furtlu-r  incpiiry,  unless  it 
be  made  bv  a  person  upon  whose  ri'|»rescntatinn  the  other 
party  is  entitled  to  rely  and  rest  satistied.  The  rejuvsentations 
of  a  man  biml  him  as  far  as  his  own  inti'rest  is  eoncernt'd,  but 

•  .'^tcwort'H  ('ftrt<.  I^   R.   1   CI).   A|>p.  *  Hewitt  v.   I.ooscmnro.  0  II«.   MO: 

fi74.     Sc«  Wi-bsU-r'H  Cam-,  L.  U.  'i  Va\.  EH|.in   v.   I'.-mb.'rU.n,   :t   D.   .t  J.   517, 

741.  «M/.c.i.  p.   HI. 

»  KiKThf.  (Vntrul  V.Miczu.lii  Uailwny  '  Ki.hirt*    v.   Cnifl.    2    D.    A   J.    1 ; 

Co.,  'A  I).  .F.  «t  S.  Vl'L  Hunt  v.  YMw^.  '2  l>.  F.  «t  •'.  n7K. 

•J.iiifs  r.  Sinitli,  1    lift.  rJ;    Hiril  v.  •  UobiTts   v.    Cruft.    '1    D.    <t   J.    1  ; 

Fox   11  lift.  47;    JoncH  v.  WillianiH.  '1\  Hunt  v.  KIiiu-h.  '1  \).  V.  <k  .1.  578.      Seo 

Ii«-nv.  47  ;    DftWHon  .•.  rriiic'.  •>  l>.  A-  .1.  I'.rry  f.    11-. 11.  ib.  :J8;   Cory  v.  Eyro,  1 

44  ;  K»|>in  v.  l'cinl»«Tl<»n,  .'«  I».  it  J.  ul7;  U.  J.  di  S.  10». 
CarUr  v  Cnrlcr,  :j  K.  &.  J.  r>l«. 


FRAll)    I  I'ON    IlllinJ    I-AiniKS.  li.'n 

do  not  l)in(l  the  interests  ofotluT  ])arties,  luile^s  ho  was  anthrjr- 
ized  by  them  to  make  the  re[)resentation8.  An  under-lesset.' 
must  not  rest  satisfied  \\  ifli  the  representations  of  his  lesi^or, 
mIio  is  also  a  sulilessee,  as  to  tlie  covenants  in  the  Icic.  ij,. 
must  go  l)ack  to  some  one  wlio  can  give  him  more  complete 
information.'  Nor  sliould  a  man  who  deals  with  an  agent 
liaving  a  limited  antliority  rest  witisiied  with  liis  representa- 
tions as  to  the  extent  of  his  antliority,  hut  should  refer  to  tlie 
ju'incipal  for  fnrtlur  information. ~  So,  also,  a  man  \\ho 
accepts  a  conveyance  without  iiny  previous  investigation,  rely- 
ing on  tlio  mci-G  assurances  of  tlie  vendor  that  lie  is  absolute 
owner,  will  be  held  to  have  constructive  notice  of  the 
title,  although  he  may  have  acted  without  any  fraudulent 
intention.* 

The  effect  of  what  would  be  otherwise  notice  may  be 
destroyed  not  only  by  actual  misrcj)resentation,  but  by  mere 
silence,  or  by  anything  calculated  to  deceive,  or  even  lull  sus- 
picion on  a  particular  point.''  If  the  vendor  of  a  lease  be 
informed  by  the  ])urcliaser  of  his  ol)jcct  in  buyini,^,  and  the 
lease  contains  covenants  which  will  defeat  that  object,  the 
silence  of  the  vendor  is  ecpiivalent  to  a  misrepresentation.' 
But  if  the  agent  of  the  purchaser  has  had  the  opportunitv  of 
inspecting  the  original  lease,  the  vendor  need  not  inform  the 
purchaser  of  unusual  covenants  which  will  prevent  him  from 
carrying  out  his  intention.^ 

Although  a  man  who  has  been  induced  to  enter  into  a 
transaction  by  misrepresentation  might  have  detected  the  mis- 


Tnrlccr  v.  Why«c.   1   IT.  &  M.  167.  Drew.  1.  nfTil.    1   Jur.  N.  S.  U9 ;  How 

See   Clements  i'.  Welles,  L.   K.    1  Eq.  ard  v.  ClmfVers,  2  1  )r.  &  Sm.  '2:ii\'. 

200.  ♦  I'ope   I'.   Garland,   4    Y.   A-  C.  S94  ; 

»  Wilson  »•.  Hart,  2  II.  &  M.  551,  L.  Bartlett  t>.   Salmon,  6  D.  il.  «t  ii.  i]  • 

R.  1  Ch.  App.  46:5.  Darlin-^ton  i-.  Hamilton.  Kav,  550,  Dart' 

'  Jaokson  r.  Kowe,  2  Sim.  <t  St.  472,  V.  A  1'.  75,  xiijn-n.  p.  \)\.     '                    ' 

475.     Sec  Jones  i-.   Smith,   1    I'll.  255;  '  Flii^lit  r.  liartou,  o  M.  it  CI.  282. 

>"eesora  v.  Clnrk^-on,  2  lla.  17:: ;  West  v.  «  Morley  v.  Clavering,  2a  Beay,  84. 
Reid,   ib.   260;    Proctor   v.  Cooper,  2 


258  ruAi  i>  I  PON  'rim;i>  tahtiks. 

representation  lon<;  het'ori'  the  time  he  did,  he  is  iKit  bound  to 
make  in(|niries,  until  there  is  8onicthin<;  to  raise  suspieion.* 

Constructive  notiee  only  oi)erates  in  eases  atlectin<;  title. 
A  mere  constructive  notice  of  circumstances  of  ne;;li;^ence  in 
the  mode  of  conducting  a  sale  is  entirely  collateral  to  any 
question  of  title.' 

It  is  not  necessary  that  notice  should  be  broui^ht  homo  to 
the  party  interested  himself  It  is  enough,  if  it  is  brought 
home  to  his  agent,  solicitor,  or  counsel,'  There  is  no  distinc- 
tion in  point  of  legal  effect  between  personal  notice  to  the 
party  and  ii(.)tiee  alleeting  liini  through  tlie  medium  of  his 
agent.*  ^Notice  to  the  agent  is  notice  to  the  principal:  for 
upon  general  ])rineiples  of  ])ublic  policy  it  must  be  taken  for 
granted  tliat  the  i»riiicipal  knows  whatever  the  agent  knows,'* 
As  a  general  rule,  the  principal  is  deemed  to  have  notice  of 
whatever  is  communicated  to  his  agent  wliilst  acting  as  such  in 
the  transaction  to  which  the  communication  relates.'  The 
])rincipal  or  client  is  fixed  with  the  knowledge  of  every  fact 
material  to  the  transaction  which  his  agent  or  solicitor  either 
knows  or  has  imjiarted  to  him  in  the  course  of  his  employ- 
ment, and  which  it  was  his  duty  to  communicate,  whether  it 
be  communicated  or  not.'     Tiie  rule  that   notice  to  an  a^'ent  is 


•  llawlins  v.  Wicklinm.  3  D.  <t  J.  304.  *  Toulmin  f.  St.-ero,  3  Mcr.  224. 

»  liorcll  V.  Dnnn,  2  lla.  410.  »  IJnnk  of  l'u\ud  Stutos  v.  Davics,  2 

*  iJutli  nmi  M<iiitii;,'uV  Cum-.  3  I'll.  f'n.  Hill  (.\iiii'r  )  It.l. 

110;   nn.llMTloii  r.  llutl.  2  Veni.  571  ;  *  Siiiiiif.nil     i:     llaiiily.    23     Wond. 

Mtt«l<l<»x  r.  iladilox,  1  \  »'8.  CO;   llui^lios  (.\iiut.)  2(>s  ;  Hank  of  lijilotl  States  v. 

r.  (iarntT,   2   Y.  d:  C.   :'.28  ;    Areli.  r   v.  Davi<s.  2  Hill  ( Aimr.  I.  •i:.2. 

Hudson,  15  I..  J.  Cli.  211.  '  Sheldon  r.  Cox,  Ami).  t;2« ;   Roddy 


•  Ilovcy  V.  Hliinrhanl,  19  N.  11.  145;  IJo.«.<i  r.  Houston,  2")  Mi^s.  ."iDl  ; 
JontH  r.  Humforil.  21  lowii,  217;  .Miller  r.  Frahy,  21  Ark.  22;  Walker  r. 
Ayn-H,  1  Clarke,  4411;  In^'nlls  r.  Mor^'un.  10  N.  Y.  17^;  Smith  r.  Oliver, 
31  Ala,  39;  Wortluu  r.  "VVilliuinH.  24  HI,  07;  Heed's  Appeal,  :J1  IVnn.  207; 
Willi.'*  r.  Vallette.  4  Met.  (Ky.)  ISiJ. 

Notice  to  a  inau  is  uot  notiee  to  his  wife.  SiH»nubIe  r.  Snyder,  7  llill, 
in. 


ruAii)  ri'oN   riiii:i)  tartiks. 


'J.")'.) 


notice  to  till*  iiriiici|);il   :ii. plies  to  cu-is  wlicn;   tlir  ]>riiicii)al  ia 
ail  infant.* 

The  iidticc  wliicli  afl'ccts  a  ]iriiicii>al  or  client  tlirou^'-li  lii--^ 
a^ent  or  solicitor  is  ^enei all v  treated  as  const niclive  notice; 
but  inasmueli  as  the  principal  or  client  is  bound  by  the  notice 
wliether  it  be  coniniunicated  to  liim  or  not,  and  is  not  ])re- 
sunicd  to  liavc  the  knowled.^^e,  merely  because  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  put  liim  (»n  intpiiry,  such  nntice  may  more 
properly  be  treated  as  actual  notice,  or  if  it  is  necessary  to 
make  a  distinction  between  the  knowledge  which  a  man  pos- 
sesses liimself  and  tliat  which  is  known  to  his  agent  or  solici- 
tor, the  hitter  may  be  called  im})uted  knowledge." 

Kotice  to  an  agent,  solicitor,  or  counsel  should,  in  order  t) 
bind  a  princi])al  or  client,  be  notice  in  the  same  transaction.*^ 
But  the  rule  is  subject  to  a  (pialilication  where,  from  the  sur- 
rounding circumstances,  or  from  the  one  transaction  being  so 
closely  connected  with  another,  the  agent  or  solicitor  must  be 
presumed  to  have  remembered  the  previous  one.  In  all  such 
cases  the  notice,  though  not  in  the  same  transaction,  is  never- 
theless binding.' f 

«■.  Willianis,  3  J.  AL.  ir,;  Marjoribnnks,  «  Fitzsrfral.l    v.    Fauconbcrg,    Fitzg. 

r.  Ilovutuk-n.  Dru.  11  ;  Caiitiock  r.  .laun-  211  ;   W  a  nick  '•.  Warrick,  3  Atk.  29.); 

cev  27  L.  J.  Cli.  57;  Ej^piii  v.  I'cnibcr-  Wursk'V  >:  Lord  Scarborough,  ih.  3it2; 

ton.  3  D.  <t  J.  551 ;  Wvllie   v.  rullen,  lliirn  v.  Mill.  13  Yes.  114;  Kilgecumbo 

32  L.  J.  Cli.  782  ;  15oursot  v.  Savage,  L,  v,  Straiiccr,  1  Jiir.  400;  Fuller  r.  Bcn- 

R.  2  Eq.  134.     See  Taml.  176.  ;»>•  Sir  iiett,  2  Ha.  394;    TyUe  V.   Webb,  6 

J.  Leaih.  M.  K.;  Spaight  v.   Cownc,  1  Beav.   552;    Finch   r.  Shaw   19   Beav. 

U.  it  M.  3 •">'•'.  5^";    Colyer    r.    F'inch,   6   II.  L.  905. 

*  Touhnin  I'.  Stcere.  3  Mer.  222.  See   Steed  »•.  Wiiitaker,   Barnard's   Cli. 

»  See  Touhnin  v.  Stcerc.  3  Mcr.  222.  220 ;  Ilauiilton  »•.  Koyse,  2  Sch.  &  Lef. 

»3  1).  «t  J.  554.p(rLordChelinslor(i.  315;    M-uiitford  i'.   Scott,  3  MadJ.  34, 

See  Mayhew  v.  Eanics,  3  B.  &  C.  001 ;  T.  &  \X.  274. 

Cooksoiw- Lee,  23  L.  J.  Ch.  473  ;  Evre  'Tnuhuin    r.    Stecre,    3    M.-r.    222; 

r.    lUu-mestcr,    10    II.    L.    103.     Coiiip.  IIargrea\e-i  r.  Itothwell,    1   Keen,  154; 

Wilde  V.  Gibson,  1  II.  L.  005.  Ni.\ou  v.  Hamilton,  2  Dr.  <k  ^\  al.  391 ; 


*  McCormick  v.  Wlieclcr,  3G  111.  114  ;  Bracken  r.  :Miller,  4  W.  &  S.  102  ; 
Hood  V.  Falincstock,  8  Watts,  480  ;    Grant  r.  CoU-,  8  Ala.  519;  Lawrence 

V.  Tucker,  7  Grecnl.  19.');  Boyd  r.  VantUrkcmp,  1  Barb.  2sT. 

t  Hurt  r.  Farmers',  ice.  Bank,  33  Vt.  2o2;    Biuuit-mlial  r.  Brainerd,  38 

VI.  410  ;  The  Distilled  Spirits,  11  Wall.  o53. 


•J(U) 


ni.vrn  rros  tiiiud  I'Aurir.s. 


The  rulo  tliat  notice  to  an  ap'iit  or  solicitor  is  notice  to  a 
principal  or  a  client,  applies  where  the  name  solicitor  or  a-^ent  is 
eini)lovc(l  Ity  both  parties  to  the  transaction,*  or  is  himself  the 
vendor.'  The  mere  circumstance,  however,  of  there  hein:,' 
only  one  solicitor  in  the  business  does  not  necc  -arily  consti- 
tute him  the  solicitor  of  hi'tli  parties  so  as  to  allect  both  with 
notice.  It  does  not  follow  that  if  there  be  not  a  solicitor  em- 
ployed on  both  sides,  the  solicitor  who  does  act  is  the  solicitor 
of  both  parties.  To  have  this  elVect,  there  must  be  a  consent 
to  accept  him  as  such,  or  somethin*;  cciuivalciit  thereto.' 

The  rule  that  notice  to  a  solicitor  is  notice  to  the  client 
applies  only  as  between  ])arties  dcaliiiir  hostilely  with  each 
other.* 

It  is  not  every  descrii>tion  of  kno\vled,i,'e  possessed  by  a 
solicitor  emjiloyed  in  any  ])artirular  transaction  that  can  be 
treated  as  the  actual  knowled^^c  of  the  client.  All  matters 
afFectinj;  the  title  to  ])roperty,  or  the  interests  of  other  ])erson9 
in  connection  with  it,  all  circumstances  which  would  entitle 
parties  to  eiiuitable  priorities,  or  changj  the  character  of  ri^j^hts, 


Fuller  r.  I?<'nnrtt.  2  TTii.  SOt  ;    ncranl  v.  Frost,  3  M.  A  0.  GT<';    .Miirjorihiinks 

f.  O.IU- lly.  3  Dr.  .t  War.  JU;   MarJDri-  i'.    lL»vciuk-i),   Dm.    11;     U<>l)ins<>n    v. 

banks.'.  lioven.U-n,  Dru.  11.     See  lvl'.:i>-  IJri,'-.:^.    1    Sm.   it(}.  188;    Ji'e    Uorke'a 

ciiiiil)c    r.   Stranu'er,    1    Jur.    IKU;     lie  Estjitf.  13  Ir.  Cli.  371. 
Smallninn's   ¥MuU\   Ir.  L.  K.   ■>  K-i    :U.  '  Kspin  v.  IVinlH-rton,  4  Drew.  333.  3 

Cotiii'.  Wilde   I'.  (Jib^on,    1   H.    I..  Co:.;  D.  it  J.  517;   Wytlit-.s  t».  Laboiichore.  3 

but  hc-c  Sii:;.  L.  1'.  <>U.  D.    ct    J.    591;     Lloyd   c.  Attwood,  lA. 

'  Le    Neve   »•.  Le  Neve,  3  Atk.  01ft;  ftl4  ;    i'crry   v.   lloll,    'i   D.  F.  «t  J.  38. 

Toulinin  I'.  Steero.  .l.Mer.  tilo;  Fulleri'.  See   Le   Novo  t-.  Lc  .Neve.  3  Atk.  646  ; 

llennilt,  2  Ha.  3'.U;    Drvden    i'.  Frost,  Kendall    c.  llulirt,   11  Jur.  8t',4  ;   Hewitt 

3    M.  «l:  <'.  67'i;    Uoddv  "f.  Willinin-t,  3  v.    LuoseMKin-,    '.•   Ma.   4 !'.» ;    Cobbett  r. 

.1    <t  L.  1»'.;  Frail  r.  KliiM.  nUlc-av.  :t50;  llrock,    'JO    Heav.    5t»l;     Atterbury    i-. 

Tw.-edale    v.  Tw.-clnle,    '^3    Heav.  :{4 1  ;  Wnllii,  8    D.    M.    it   (}.  454.Su-.  V.  4 

AtU-riiUry  v.  Wallis,  H  D.  .M.  it  <J.  454;  \\  772.    C'onip.  Tweedale   i'.  Tweodalc, 

O^filvie    V.    JcntrrcBon,    2    (Jiff     353;  23  Heav.  311. 

Spal^^lit  V.    Cownc,    1    H.   it    .M.   35'J ;  «  Austin  v.  Tuwuey,  L.  U.  2  ih.  Ajip. 

linur^ot  p.  Savnije.  L.  H.  2  V.<\.  131.  143. 

'  .'^hclduo  t<.  Cux,  Ainb.  624  ;    Dryden 


Notiro  ooniinuniratcil  to  an  nLjcnt  by  men-  rumor  .-ind  talk  iijmn  tlio 
Btn-<t  conicr.-*,  iH  not  kn(»\vl«?  lu'f  ihat  will  biud  tlic  |)riiicij),il.  Kccnan  r. 
MibBOuri,  &C.  Ins.  Co.  12  Iowa,  TJO. 


l^iiAUD  I  r(JN  Tiiiiu)  I'AUTina.  'J.i'A 

which  (lopcnd  upon  want  of  notice,  if  IvMoum  to  tlio  solicitor, 
hiivo  the  same  ollect  us  if  actually  known  to  the  client.  IJut 
this  imputed  knowledge  will  not  extend  to  niatter.s  which  have 
no  reference  to  rights  created  or  affected  by  the  transaction, 
hut  whicli  iiR'ivIy  relufe  to  the  m(»tives  and  objects  of  the 
parties,  or  to  the  consideration  upon  which  the  matter  is 
foujided.^  Nor  does  the  employment  of  a  solicitor  to  do  a 
mere  ministerial  act,  such  as  the  procuring  the  execution  of  a 
deed,  so  constitute  him  an  agent,  as  to  affect  his  employer  with 
notice  of  matters  within  his  knowledge.'^ 

The  rule  that  notice  to  a  solicitor  is  notice  to  the  client 
applies,  notwithstanding  that  the  solicitor  may  be  perpetrating 
a  fraud  upon  the  client  in  the  transaction.^  The  commission 
of  a  fraud  being  beyond  the  scope  of  the  authority  of  a  soli- 
citor, the  fraud  of  a  solicitor  cannot  of  course  be  imputed  to 
the  client.''  But  the  fact  that  a  solicitor  may  be  committing  a 
fraud  in  relation  to  a  transaction,  in  which  he  is  employed,  can 
not  afford  any  reason  why  the  client  should  not  be  affected 
with  constructive  knowledge  of  the  facts.  Tlie  constructive 
knowledge  of  all  the  facts  must  be  imputed  to  him  whether 
there  is  fraud  relating  to  the  transaction  or  not.  The  solicitor 
is  the  aUer  ego  of  the  client.  The  client  stands  in  precisely 
the  same  situation  as  the  solicitor  does  in  the  transaction,  and 
therefore  the  knowledge  of  the  solicitor  is  the  knowledge  of 
the  client.  It  would  be  a  monstrous  injustice  that  the  client 
should  have  the  advantage  of  what  the  solicitor  knows  without 
the   disadvantage.^      In   determining   the   eciuities,    however, 


•  P<r  Lonl  Chelmdforc],  10  II.  L.  114.  v.  Ilovcndcn.  Dm.  11 ;  Kcndnll  v.  Hulls, 

»  Wyllie  V.  Pollen,  32  L.  J.  Cli.  782.  11  Jur.  SiJl;   Eastliam  v.  Wilkinson,  3:i 

»  Boursot  I'.  Savrt-e,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  131.  L.  T.  234  ;  Spai:,'lit  i-.   Cowiie.  1    II,  &. 

See  Rodily  i-;  Williams,  3  J.  tt  L.  10.  M.   3G5:  Tlioinpson  v.  Cartwright,  3.'; 

«  Konncdv  ".  (xrecn.  3  M.  it  K.  600 ;  Beav.  1S5:  2  I).  J.  A  S.  10;  re  Uorke's 

Roddy  1'.  Williams,  3  J.  it  L.  Ifi;  Espin  Est.te.  13  Ir.  Cli.  271. 

c.  Pemberton,  3  1).  tt  J.  517;  Perrv  w.  ' /*"•  Kindersl-v,  V.-C. ;    Bonrsot  r. 

Holl,  2  D.  F.  k  J.  38;  Ogilvie  v.  Jeatl-  Savairc  L.  R.  2  Eq.  134.     Set-   B.>wlc3 

reaon,  2  Giff.   374.     See  Marjoiibunka  r.  Stuirt,  1  Sch.   tk  L- f.  222 ;  Nixon  v. 


'J(>2  viivri)  fPi^x  Tiiiun  i^Mn'i!:??. 

between  p.irfie>5  win)  li.ivo  been  defrftn<le<l  by  a  coiiiii\'>n  phII- 
citor,  tlie  ciMirt  looks  to  see  whethfr  tlu-re  b:H  been  aiiytliiiig 
in  the  transaction  calculated  to  j)ut  either  ot'  the  i>:irtie8  upon 
inqnirv.  If  there  be  anything?  in  the  case  calculated  to  excito 
suspicion,  or  to  put  either  of  the  parties  upon  iinpiiry,  and  ho 
abstains  from  iiniuiry,  the  sain?  kmnvled'^e  will  br  imputed  to 
him  as  he  wouM  li:ivi'  been  atfoeted  with,  liad  ho  employed  an 
independent  solicitor.* 

Notice  to  one  partner  of  a  tradin;^  j>artnership  is  notice  to 
the  other  partners.''  *  A  partner,  however,  is  not  necessarily 
lixcd  with  notice  of  the  contents  of  his  own  books.' 

The  rule  that  notice  to  one  partner  is  notice  to  the  other 
partners  does  not  apj^ly  to  the  case  of  corporations  or  joint- 
t'tock  companies.  Xotice  on  the  part  of  a  share-holder,  or 
non-actinij^  director,  does  not  affect  the  whole  body;*t  but 
notice  to  one  of  tho  persons  legally  intrusted  with  the  proper 
business  to  which  -the  notice  relates,  or  who  has  authority  to 
act  for  the  corporation  in  the  particular  matter  in  regard  to 
which  the  notice  is  given,  will  bind  the  corporation.':}:    Notice, 

Hflinilton.  2   Dr.  A  Wal.  3D1  ;  Toulinin  2  D.   F.  «t  J.   3S.     See  GrecnslaJo  v. 

».  SU-LTc.  S  Mcr.  2-'2;   lli-wllt  r.  L- ><)<(.•-  Dare,  20  Beav.  2St;   Ktiith.im   v.   WiU 

mor.-.  ;»  llii.  IJ'.';   Attcrhiirv  >:  Wnllis.  kii^.ti,  :K}  L.  T.  2:i». 

8   1).  M.  it   (i.  l.'):;   i:<irkf'"s   KstaU-,  13  '  Atkiii-on   t:   Maori'tli.  35   L.  J.  Cli. 

Ir.  ell.  271  ;  Hunk  of  United   rStatoa  v.  021;  Liiidl.  on  Partnr.  2yj. 

Davits,  2  Hill  (Ainer.),  4(11.  *  See  Stewart's  (.'ase,  L.  K.  1  Cli.  App. 

•  Kenneily  «'.  (Jreen,  3  M.  <t  K.  009;  674. 
Frail  »'.  EUirt.  1ft  lUav.  3r)7  ;  U^rilvie  c  *  PowIp'I   t-.    Va^ro,   3    C.    B.    10;    re 

.leatrrcson,   2  •Jiff.   371  ;     Attcrburv  ti.  Carew's  Estate.  31  lioav.  4.'5. 
WallLs,  2.'j  L.  J.  C'h.  704;  Perry  v.  lloll,  *  Worcester  Corn  Exchange  Co.,  8D. 


•  Wat.son  r.  Well-*,  r;  Ct.  4(;'<;  Miildlptan  &c.  Bank  i.  Dubiiniic,  19 
Iowa,  4G7;  ]J:iiifrli<T  r.  Duphoin,  S(  (Jill,  314. 

t  Ilou.satonic  Hunk  r.  .Muriin,  1  M-t.  2U4 ;  Custer  r.  Tompkins  County 
IJank,  9  Ponn.  27;  Bank  of  Pittsbur;,'!!  r.  WljitfluiKl.  lo  Watts.  397; 
Union  Canal  Co.  e.  Lloyd,  4  W.  &  H.  8Jt3. 

J  Porter  r.  Hunk  of  Kutlaiid,  lt»  Vt.  410  ;  Fiiltr.ii  I',:ink  i.  X.-w  York 
&c.  Canal  Co.,  4  Vn'mi',  127;  Bunks  r.  Martin,  1  Met.  ;ii)S ;  Bank  of  United 
States  t.  D:ivi.'»,  2  Hill,  4'il  ;  National  Bank  r.  Norton,  1  Hill,  575; 
Mechanics'  Bank  of  Alexandria  r,  Seton,  1  Pet.  2'J». 


FRAUD  UPON  TIIIKI)  rAi:iii:.-4.  2(i:! 

liowovcr,  to  tho  oflicer  of  u  cor|)<jration,  or  kiiowlcdiro  obtained 
]iy  liiin  whilst  not  cnii^aired  oflicially  in  tlic  l)usiiic'ss  of*  the 
coMii>any,  is  iii(»i>crativc  as  notice  to  the  latter.  "  Hut  in  the 
case  of  a  joint  agency  (<".  (/.,  the  directors  of  a  company),  notice 
to  cither  whilst  engaged  in  the  business  of  his  agency  is  notice 
lo  the  principal.^ 

A  shareholder  in  a  eoinj)any  formed  uiuler  the  Companies' 
Act,  1S()2,  is  nut  necessarily  fixed  Avith  a  knowledge  of  the 
contents  of  the  menioraiidimi  or  articles  of  association  of  the 
conii)any.''  r>nt  he  ninst,  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the 
registration  of  the  memorandum  and  articles  of  association,  be 
presumed  to  acquaint  himself  with  their  contents.  After  the 
lapse  of  a  reasonable  time  he  cannot  be  hciu-d  to  say  that  he 
had  no  knowledge  of  their  contents.  What  will  be  a  reason- 
able time  may  in  some  degree  vary  in  different  cases,  but  must 
always  be  measured  with  reference  to  the  thing  to  be  done.' 

The  shareholders  in  a  company  are  not  bound  to  look  into 
the  management,  and  will  not  be  held  bound  to  have  notice  of 
everything  which  has  been  done  by  the  directors,  who  may  be 
assumed  by  the  shareholders  to  have  done  their  duty."*  But  if 
a  transaction  be  inserted  in  the  books  of  a  company,  the  share- 
holders will  be  fixed  with  notice  of  it.' 

The  registration  of  an  assurance  is  not  of  itself  notice.  A 
prior  equitable    incumbrance   will   not,   although   registered, 

M.   (fc  G.   183;    re  Carew's   Estate,  31  425;     Wilkinson'3     Case,    re    Madrid 

Bcav.  45;  Parsons  on  Coutrat-ts.  p.  05.  Bank,  ib.  510. 

'  Bank  of  United  States  v.  l)avies,  2  *  Stanlmpe's  disc,  L.   R.  1  Ch.  App. 

Hill  (Amer.),  402.     But  sec  Story  on  101,     But  see  Wulford  v.  Adic,  5  Ha. 

Agency,  jj^  140  a,  140  b.  112,  ll'.t. 

''Stewart's  Case,  L.  B.   1  Cli.  App.  *  Spackman's  Case,  34   L.  J.  Cli.  321, 

67-1-  325 ;  Stanhope's  Case,  L.  li.  1  Cb.  App. 

•Lawrence's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  App.  101. 


"■  Lvne  V.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  545 ;  Goncrnl  Ins.  Co.  r. 
United  States  Ins.  Co.,  10  Mil.  517;  United  States  Ins.  Co.  r.  Siiriver,  ^ 
Mil.  Ch.  3^1;  "Washington  Bank  r.  Lewis.  22  Pick.  21;  FiirrcU  Foundrj- 
Co.  r.  Dart,  2C  Ct.  370. 


264  rK.Mi)  ipoN  TiiiKn  r\i:Tirs. 

atVect  n  8iihso«[m'iit  |iunli;i.-rr  witlmut   noticf  \\lii»  has  (»l)t:uiUMl 
the  le^al  estate.*  *     I'.tit  if  a  piiirliasfr  scairli  the  rc^ititer,  lie 

•  Morocock   r.  Dickens,  Amb.    (>1S ;  BuBliell  v.  BuslicU,  1  Scli.  A  Ld.  98. 


*  TIjo  rofji^tnition  of  ii  deed  is  ronstructivc  notice  to  a  8ul)Hcqucnt 
purchas-or.  IIiif^lKS  r.  Edwania,  0  Wheat.  'iHi) ;  Lussollo  r.  Barnett,  1 
IHackf.  130;  Pctore  r.  Goodrich,  3  Ct.  110;  Smitlj  r.  Prince,  14  Ct.  472; 
Totld  r.  Benedict,  15  Iowa,  501  ;  Scliutt  r.  Lar-?e,  G  Barb.  373. 

Tlie  record  of  u  deed  not  required  by  hiw  to  be  recordr-d  is  not  con- 
stnictive  notice.  Viihird  r.  lioberts,  1  Strobli,  Idi.  3'J3 ;  t'Dmmoiiwealth 
r.  Rodes,  0  B.  Mon,  171;  Thoma.s  v.  Grand  Gulf  Bank.  9  Snied.  6c  Mar. 
201;  Lewis  r.  Baird,  3  McLean,  50;  Keed  v.  Coale,  4  Ind.  2S3;  Biiniham 
t.  Chandlcy,  15  Te.x.  441;  Bossiird  r.  White,  9  Hicir.s  Eq.  483  ;  Parrett  r. 
Shaubhut,  5  Minn.  303 ;  Galpin  v.  Ablxjtt,  0  ^lich.  17. 

The  record  of  a  deed  deticient  in  some  statutory  requirement  is  not 
constructive  notice  of  its  existence.  Carter  r.  Champion.  8  Ct.  54U;  Sum- 
ner c.  Rhodes,  14  Ct.  135;  Moorec.  Auditor,  3  Hen.  iV  M.  235;  Doswell  r. 
Buchanan,  3  Lei<^h,  305  ;  Dui)liey  r.  Frcnage,  5  Stew.  &  Port,  215  ;  Jolins 
r.  Reardon,  3  MtL  Ci).  57;  Choban  v.  Jones,  11  III.  300;  Isham  p.  Benn- 
ington Iron  Co.,  19  Vt.  230;  Schultz  r.  Moore,  1  McLean,  520;  Do  Witt 
T.  Moultftn,  5  Siiep.  418;  Gait  v.  Dilirdl,  10  Yeru'.  14() ;  Harper  r.  Reno,  I 
Freem.  Cli.  323. 

Record  is  constructive  notice  only  to  those  claiming  under  the  grantor 
by  whom  the  deed  was  made.  Tilton  v.  Hunter,  11  Shep.  29  ;  Crockett  r. 
Maguire,  10  Mo.  34;  Lily  r.  Wolf,  10  Ohio,  83;  Stuyvesant  r.  Hall,  3 
Barl).  Ch.  158 ;  Murray  r.  Ballon,  1  Johns.  Ch.  574  ;  Keller  r.  Nutz,  5  S.  ct 
R  252 ;  Lightney  r.  Mooney,  10  Watts,  412;  Bates  r.  Norcross,  14  Pick. 
224;  Blake  c.  Grahanj.  0  Ohio  St.  R.  580. 

A  deed  proj)erly  left  with  tlie  clerk  for  record  will  1)C  considered  as 
reconled  from  the  time  when  it  was  so  left,  although  it  has  l)ecn  lost  and 
never  recorded  through  the  negligence  of  the  clerk.  Beverly  r.  Ellis,  1 
Rand.  102;  Nichols  r.  Reynolds,  1  Angell,  30. 

An  incorrect  entry  in  the  index  book  will  not  impart  con->tructivo 
notice  to  u  HubMipient  purchaser.  Breed  r.  Conley,  14  Iowa,  209;  Gwynn 
c.  Turner,  18  Iowa,  1. 

Where  the  .state  of  the  title  is  such  that  there  is  nothing  to  connect 
the  name  or  interests  of  u  thinl  person  with  the  property,  it  is  unreason- 
able to  impute  notice  of  the  interests  of  such  third  jierson  to  a  purchaser, 
for  no  ordinary  prudence  can  «le!ect  it.  Lily  r.  Wolf,  I'l  Ohio,  83;  Jlur- 
ruy  r.  Ballou,  1  Johns.  Ch.  500  ;  Sanger  r.  Craigar.  10  Vt.  555  ;  Jenning  r. 
Wood,  20  Ohio,  201  ;  Filton  r.  ritn«au.  11  <teo.  5:!0. 

The  recording  of  o  deed  from  the  true  owmr  in  his  right  name,  though 


riJAri)  ri'oN  tiiiud  taktiks.  2G5 

Mill  l»c  iiresunu'd  to  liavL-  notice,  unless  the  presumption  can 
l)u  rt'ljutted  ]>y  showing  tiiat  the  search  wan  made  for  a  i)eriod 
only  in  which  the  re/^irftercd  deeds  are  not  included.'  There 
is  a  material  distinction  in  tlie  efl'ect  of  ro'^istration  between 
the  ri'_^ister  acts  of  Ireland  aii<l  those  ot  lOn^-laml.  Hy  the 
Irish  Act  0  Anne,  c.  2,  an  absolute  priority  is  expressly  given 
to  the  instrument  first  registered,  so  that  a  subsequent  pur- 
chaser, having  the  legal  estate,  though  he  has  not  notice  of  an 
equitable  estate  previously  registered,  will  be  bound  and  com- 
pelled to  give  eflfect  to  it.^ 

At  law,  notwithstanding  notice,  mere  priority  of  registra- 
tion absolutely  determines  the  right  to  the  property  as  between 
persons  claiming  under  adverse  registered  instruments,  pur- 
porting to  pass  the  legal  estate  ;'  but  in  equity,  notwithstand- 
ing the  stringent  language  of  the  Ilegistration  Acts,  registra- 

'  Hodgson  I'.  Tfonn,  2  Sim.  &  St.  221,  08;  Lntoucbc  v.  Lord  Dunsany.  'i.  I")'', 

ftffd.     Sec  Sng.   V.  tfe   1'.  701.     Conip.  160;  Drew  f.  Lord  Xoibury.  :J  J.  (t  L. 

Procter  V.  Cooper,  2  Drew.  1  ;  1  Jur.  N.  267 ;  Mill  r.  Hill,  '-i  11.  L.  828. 
S.  11 9.  '  Doe  I'.  Alsop,  5  B.  it  Aid.  142. 

» liusbcll  V.   Dushcll,    1    Sch.  it   Lcf. 


different  from  the  name  by  which  he  acquired  it,  is  constructive  notice  ol 
such  (Iced.     Fallon  v.  Kohoc,  :58  Cal.  44. 

AVhen  there  is  a  material  variance  betwcea  the  record  copy  and  the 
deed,  the  record  is  not  constructive  notice.  Fro.st  r.  Bcekman,  1  Johns. 
Ch.  288 ;  Sawyer  v.  Crane,  10  Vt.  553 ;  Baldwin  v.  [Marshall,  2  Humph. 
116;  Jennings  v.  Wood,  20  Ohio,  2G1 ;  Miller  r.  Bradford,  12  Iowa,  14. 

Fraud  can  not  I)e  inferred  from  mere  delay  in  putting  a  deed  on  rec- 
ord, if  the  grantee  has  used  all  the  dispatch  which  the  law  reipiires.  If 
subsequent  purchasers  without  notice  sustain  an  injury  within  the  time 
allowed  for  recording  a  deed,  the  injury  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  law. 
Sherras  r.  Craig,  7  Cranch,  ;>4. 

A  party  cannot  be  permitted  to  take  a  deed  from  another  for  his  own 
security,  and  leave  the  grantor  in  pos.<e.-;>ion,  and  ostensibly  the  owncr> 
and  withhold  it  from  record  for  an  indefinite  jjcriod.  renewing  it  periodi- 
cally, and  then  receive  the  benefit  of  it  by  placing  the  last  renewal  upon 
the  record.  All  the  renewals  are  mere  continuations  of  the  first  deed,  and 
the  time  for  recording  begins  to  run  from  its  date.  Gill  r.  Griffith,  2  MdL 
Ch.  270. 

18 


2()()  FKAII)    iroN    TIIIIM)    rAKTlES. 

tion  is  no  ]>rotcction  against  :iii  uiiri'^nVttntl  assurance  of  which 
tlie  party  clalMiin';  uinlcr  the  rci^isterod  iiistniiiR'iit  had  notice 
prior  to  the  completion  of  liis  purcliase  or  security,*  The  ol)- 
■ject  of  tlio  lloi^istration  Acts  hein^  to  ^ive  notice,  the  evils 
against  which  those  statutes  intended  to  i^nard  do  not  exist 
where  a  man  lias  notice  indepen<lcntly  of  the  registry.  If, 
therefore,  a  man  having  sucli  n(»tice  seeks  to  defeat  a  j>rior 
charge  on  the  pretence  that  he  had  no  notice  by  means  of  the 
registry,  it  is  a  fraud  in  the  sense  of  a  court  of  equity.'*  The 
notice  must,  however,  be  clear  and  distinct.'  f  The  same  rules 
in  regard  to  notice  apply  to  cases  nnder  the  Registry  Acts  as 
to  all  other  cases.*  Constructive  notice  of  a  j)ri(ir  unregistered 
assurance  ailecting  lands  in  Middlesex,  is  as  elfectual  as  actual 
notice.' 


'  Le  Ncvp  V.  Le  Neve,  3  Atk.  63C;  •  Wyntt  v.    r.nrwcll,    19   Vea.   435; 

Eyre   c.    MD.nvill,  9  11.  L.  019;  lie  Cliadvvick  r.  Turner,  L.  U.  1   Ch.  Ap. 

Rj.rke's   K-tnt-'.    13  Ir.   Ch.    271.     Sue  310. 

Nixon  I',  lliiniillon,  2  Dr.  <k  Wnl.  391  ;  *  WJiitbrend  v.  Jordan,  1  Y.  4  C.  303; 

Bcnhani  r.  Keane,  1  J.  <k  II.  085;  3  D.  Ford  r.  White.  10  Hcav.  120;  Wunnald 

F.  &  J.  318.  V.  Miiitland,  :{')  L.  J.  Ih.  09. 

*  SliL-Idon  V.  Cox,  2  Eden,  221 ;  liush-  »  Jh.     .>^i'c  Mx.m   r.  Hamilton,  2  Dr. 

ell  r.  l{ii-h.-ll,  1  Sch.  &  Lef.  102;  Eyro  A.  Wul.  391;  Uochard  v.  Fullon,  IJ.  iJi 

r.  M'Dowell,  9   II.   L.   019.   040;  Chad-  L.  413. 
wick  I'.  Turner,  L.  U.  1  Ch.  App.  310. 


*  Dunham  v.  Dey,  15  Johns.  5G8;  Lupton  r.  Cormll,  4  Johns.  Cb.  202; 
Ohio  Life  Ins.  Co.  c.  Ledyard,  8  Ala.  800;  Ingram  r.  Philips.  3  Strobh. 
505;  Knotts  r.  Ginfrer,  4  llich.  32;  Smitli  r.  Hall,  28  Vt.  304;  Dickenson 
r.  Hrackn,  30  111.  279;  Doe  v.  Keed,  4  Scam.  117  ;  Warnock  r.  Wri!,'litm:m, 
1  IJrtvanl,  3:11;  Hudson  r.  Wanior,  2  II.  «.\:  (.;.  4iri;  .Morion  r.  Uobards,  4 
Dana,  258;  Jacknon  c.  Leek,  lU  Wend.  33'J. 

t  Taylor  r.  lleriot,  4  Dcs.sau.  227;  Wallace  v.  Crap.-*,  3  Strobh.  200: 
Porter  r.  Scvey,  43  Me.  519. 

Constructive  notice  is  not  sullicicnt.  The  notice  must  be  such  as  will, 
with  the  Hurroundin;.jrircumstancei<,  allVct  the  purchaser  with  fraud.  Dey 
r.  Dimhum,  2  Johns.  Ch.  1H2;  City  Council  r.  I'aLre.  Spear's  Ch.  159;  Spof- 
ford  V.  Wi-ston,  29  Me.  1 10;  Hopping  r.  Hurnam,  2  Iowa,  39;  contra,  New- 
man F.  Chapman,  2  lland.  93  ;  Uogern  r.  Jone.s,  8  N.  II.  204 ;  Doo  v.  llccd, 
4  Scam.  117;  Parks  r.  Willard,  1  Tex.  350. 

A  voluntaiy  unn-cordcd  ccmvey mcc  U  valid  ngainst  any  sub.scqucnt 
Toluntury  couvcyoucc  by  the  grantor.     Way  c.  Lyon,  3  IHackf.  70. 


MISCELLANEOUS    FRAUDS.  2G7 

The  Kftmo  prim-iplcrt  Avere  held  un«ler  the  ohl  law  to  a[)i)ly 
to  the  case  of  a  jmrchaser  with  notice  ot  undoeketed  judg- 
ments,* hut  under  the  new  law  a  jiurchaser  even  with  notice  is 
nut  hdiiiid  l»y  a  judi^incnt,  unless  it  has  hceii  duly  rc'^istered  in 
the  Common  Pleas  ;^  nor  will  notice  ot"  a  registered  judgment 
affect  a  purchaser,  unless  it  has  l)een  rc-rcgistered  in  due  tinie.^ 
As  between  judgment  creditors  notice  is  not  material.* 

Purchasers  of  lands  in  Middlesex  are  bound  by  notice  of 
unregistered  or  undoeketed  judgments,  but  as  between  judg- 
ment creditors  notice  is  not  material.  A  prior  judgment  cred- 
itor has  no  equity  against  a  subsequent  judgment  creditor,  who 
has  registered  with  notice.' 

The  registration  of  a  judgment  is  not  notice,'  unless  a 
searcli  has  been  made  for  judgments,  in  which  case  notice  will 
be  presumed  ;'  but  it  seems  that  a  title  depending  on  the  fact 
of  the  vendor  having  been  a  purchaser  without  notice  of  a 
registered  judgment  cannot  be  forced  on  a  purchaser.^ 


SECTION  v.— MISCELLANEOUS  FRAUDS. 
FRAUD   UPON  POWERS. 

A  class  of  frauds  against  which  courts  of  equity  will  re- 
lieve, are  frauds  upon  powers. 

There  is  a  fraud  upon  a  power  if  a  man,  having  a  power  of 
appointment,  corruptly  exercises  the  power  with  a  view  to  his 
own  personal  benetit  and  advantage.     An  appointment  under 


'  Davis  V.  Lord  Strnthmore,  IG  Vl-s.  D.  F.  ct  J.  318.    See  Evans  v.  Williams 

419;  Sug.  V.  it  R  n-il.  34  L.  J.  Ch.  485. 

'  Sue:.  V.  &  V.  b.V3.  "  Benhnni  v.  Keane.  3  D.  F.  «t  J.  318. 

•  18  Vict.  c.  15,  ^  3.  See  Bcivan  i-.  "  Churchill  v.  Grove,  1  Ch.  Ca.  35; 
Lord  Oxford,  6  D.  M.  <fe  G.  492;  Shaw  Frecm.  Ch.  Ca,  170;  Lane  r.  Jackson, 
V.   Neale,    6   II.    L.    584;    Benham    v.  20  Beav.  535. 

Keane,   1  J.  &  H.   685 ;  3  D.  F.  it  J.  "  Proctor  v.   Cooper,   2   Drew.    1 ;  1 

318;  Evans  v.  Williams,  34  L.  J.  Ch.  Jur.  N.  S.  149. 

485.  "  Freer  f.  Hesse,  4  D.  M.  i  G.  495. 

*  Benham  v.  Keane,  1  J.  <t  II.  685 ;  3 


2G6  MISCI.I.LAM'orS     rUAlDS. 

a  power,  ucrt)nlini:lv.  \\\\\  he  set  aside  in  ciiulty  if  it  appear 
that  tlic  ]>ersuM  in  wlmsi'  favor  tin-  power  lias  liccn  exercised 
has  agreetl  or  stii)ulated  to  ^ive  tin-  owner  of  the  power  some 
benefit  or  advantage  in  tlie  event  of  the  power  bein^  exerei.sed 
in  liii>  favor,*  or  if  tlie  eircunibtances  of  the  case  attending  the 
execution  of  the  ])Ower  are  sncli  as  to  sljow  conclusively  tl)at 
the  appointment  was  iiia<le  with  a  view  to  Sijnie  profit  ulti- 
mately accruing;  to  the  owiur  of  the  jtowi-r;'  as,  for  instance, 
where  a  jiareut,  liavini;  a  power  of  apj)ointment  amoni;  child- 
ren, exercises  it  in  favor  of  a  son,  a  lunatic,  in  very  had  health 
and  likely  to  die,  in  whicli  event  the  parent  would,  of  course, 
become  entitled  to  tlie  fund,  as  the  j)ersonal  rej»resentative  of 
the  son.'  So  also,  and  for  the  same  reason,  where  a  parent 
havinfT  power  to  raise  ])ortions  for  children,  appointed  a  portion 
to  a  child  lonj,'  before  it  was  required,  and  the  child  died 
shortly  afterward,  the  appointment  was  held  invalid.*  So 
also  an  appointment  ]»y  a  jiarent  in  favor  of  a  dauirhter,  with  a 
Wew  to  obtaining  the  benefit  of  the  fund  so  appointed,  through 
the  exercise  of  undue  parental  intlucnce  over  her,  would  bo 
held  invalid.' 

There  is  a  very  material  distinction  between  powers  to  ap- 
jxjiiit  portions  to  be  raised  for  children,  and  i»owers  to  appoint 
to  children  a  fund  actually  set  apart  or  provided.  Under  a 
power  of  the  former  class,  an  appointment  whereb}-  a  portion 
is  raised  for  a  child  before  it  is  'wanted,  carries  with  itself  the 
evidence  of  fraud,  even  though  the  terms  of  the  power  author- 
ize the  parent  to  raise  the  portion  whenever  he  thinks  pro})er.' 

'  I, tine   r.   \'a'j:t',    Aiiil)!   i:3.T  ;  I'atnier  *  Wdltwloy  v.  Mornington,  2  K.  «t  J. 

r.  W  lif.l<T,  2  Ua.  .t  lU:  'M  ;   Fiinn.r  c.  113. 

Martin,  2  Sim.   .Ml;   Aniolii  r.    Hani-  *  Lord  Ilincliinhrooko   v.  Seymour,  1 

wick,  7  Sim.  .'JKI ;  .lack-mi  '•.  .Iaiki»on,  7  Bro.  C  C.   iiVT) ;  WcHesley  v.  Moruing- 

CI.  A  Fin.  y77  ;  Uowl.  y  v.  Kowl.  y.  K^iy.  ton.  2  K.  A  .1  1  la. 

242;  IWd  i:  lU-'ul,  L'.V  Itiav.  nk     Si-o  '  \U>  Mar^^l.ii'M  Tni'<t,*,  4  I>rew.  f.oi. 

AjikJinrn  v.  IJarWr,  17  H<'av.  11.  '  Lurd  Uimliiiil)ro<>kL>  v.  Svyniour,  1 

•  llumi.hrfy  v.  Oiiv.r.  2h   L.  .!.  Cli.  Dro.  C.  C.  ili'.V 
406. 


MISCELLANKOrS    rUAIDS.  209 

Under  a  power  of  the  latter  clasw,  however,  sharef?  may  he  ap- 
pointed to  a  cliild  so  as  to  vest  loiij^  hefore  tliey  are  requirctJ. 
A  hmn  jide  appuintincnt  to  a  child  of  very  tender  a^^e,  and  in 
^ood  licaltli,  of  an  estate  or  fund  wliicli  has  heen  previously  set 
apart  or  jtrovidnl  for  the  hcncfit  (»f  children,  is  in  itself  no 
sign  of  frajid.  It  is  of  no  consequence  tliat  tlie  child  nuiy  die 
shortly  afterward,  if  it  was  in  good  health  at  the  time  th(! 
power  was  exercised.  If  the  ])ower  l)e  in  other  respects  well 
executed,  it  is  immaterial  that  it  may  have  in  fact  been  exer- 
cised with  the  object  of  providing  that  in  any  event  tlic  ])C'r- 
sons  entitled  in  remainder  on  failure  of  children  shall  \M>i  tak(' 
the  estate  or  fund.* 

If  a  person  be  the  only  child  who  has  been  kind  to  a  parent 
ill  distress,  there  is  no  fraud  if  the  parent  exercises  a  power  of 
appointment  in  his  favor.'  ISTor  is  tliere  fraud  if  a  parent  exer- 
cises a  power  of  appointment  in  ftivor  of  two  of  his  sons,  to 
enable  them  to  embark  in  business,  and  then,  at  their  request, 
becomes  a  partner  Mith  them  in  the  business,  there  being  no 
evidence  to  prove  any  bargain  between  them  in  tlie  event  of 
his  exercising  the  power  in  a  particular  way.^  An  appoint- 
ment, however,  to  one  of  several  objects  of  a  power  in  pay- 
ment of  a  debt  due  to  him  from  the  appointor  is  bad.* 

Although  an  appointment  by  a  parent  in  favor  of  a  child, 
over  whom  he  exercises  undue  influence,  cannot  be  supported,^ 
it  is  otherwise  if  the  exercise  of  undue  influence  be  disproved." 
A  child  to  whom  property  has  been  appointed  by  a  jiarent 
may,  in  such  a  case,  give  the  parent  a  beueflt  or  advantage 
in  the  property  so  appointed.' 

■  Butcher  v.   Butclier,    14  Sim.  444  ;  '  lie  Marstlen's  Trust?,  4  Drew.  fiOl. 

Fearon   v.    Dfsbrisay.    14    Bcav.    635 ;  See  Toplmm  v.  Duko  of  l^ortland,  1  1». 

13cere  v.  Iloffmeislor,  23  Bcav.  101.  J.  A-  S.  517. 

"  Wheeler  i'.  rahner,  '2  Ba.  tfc  }io.  31.  *  See  siipra,  p.  181. 

'Cockcroft   V.  SutclitTe,  2  Jur.  X.  S.  '  Davis  v.  I'phill.  1  Sw.  136;  Warde 

823.  V.  Dickson,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  699. 

*  Reid  V.  Reid,  ITt  Beav.  478.     See 
Bcddocs  r.  Tuirh,  26  Bcav.  411. 


•J  70  MISCLLLASEOrs     rHAlDS. 

In  an  arninircini-nt  ^ettlin,LC  the  infcri'sts  of  all  the  hranclics 
of  a  family,  children  may  contract  with  each  otlu-r  to  ^'ivo 
to  a  parent,  who  h:i<l  i><'\vir  to  distrihutc  i)roperty  amonj^ 
them,  some  a(lvantau:e  whieh  the  ])arent,  \vith..iit  tlu-ir  contract 
with  each  other,  couhl  not  liave.* 

In  order,  liowever,  to  constitute  a  trand  upon  a  power,  it  is 

not  necessary   that    the   object  of   the  exercise  of    the  power 

should  be  the  pei*sonal  bcnetit  or  advantage  of  the  donee  of 

the   power.      If   the    design    of  the  donee  in  exercising  the 

power  is  to  confer  a  benctit,  not  ui)on  himself  actually,  but 

upon  some  other  person  not  being  an  object  of  the  i)ower, 

that    motive   just   as    much    interferes  witii   and  defeats  the 

puqiosc  for  which  the  i)Ower  was  created  as  if  it  had  been 

for  the  personal  benefit  of  the  donee  himself.     If  the  donee 

of  a  power  of  appointment  exercises   the  ])ower  in  favor  of 

one  of  several  objects  of  the  power,  with  a  view  to  the  benelit 

of  a  stranger,  the  appointment  is  fraudulent  and  void,  even 

although  the  motive  of  the  donee  is  not  morally  wrong.^    A 

man   who  takes  property  absolutely  under  an   appointment, 

may  do  with  the  property  so  appointed  as  he  pleases,  and  may 

settle  it  on  persons  who  are  not  objects  of  the  power;'  but 

there  is  a  fraud  \\\u>u  a  power  if  an  appointment  be  nmde  upon 

a  bargain  for  the  benefit  of  persons  who  are  not  objects  of  the 

power.*     The  appointment,  accordingly,  of  a  ]iortion  of  a  fund 

to  a  daughter,  for  the  ]»urpose  of  l>aying  her  husband's  debts, 

was  held  void."     So  also,  where  a  married  wonuin,  having  a 

power  to  appoint  a  fund  of  wliich  she   received  the  income  for 

her  life,  appointed  the  whole  fund  at   her  death  absolutely  in 

favor  of  her    daughter,   in   order  that   thereout   the  daughter 

should  benefit  the  father,  the  apix.intnient  was  held  invalid.*^ 

•DbvIhi-.  rphill.  1  Sw.  i:<f..  Miirl.y    •'.     l5irloy.    ih.;     VryoT    v. 

'  lie  MnrH.lfirK  Tru-t».  I  I»r.'w.  f.dl.  rrv<.r.  'i  I>.  .1.  .1  S.  •Ju.'i. 

»  l{<.utl«-(l(,'«'  >•.  l».irrill.  'I  Vi'M.  .Ir.  a&7.  Iliiiikin-  »•.  l«urnf*,  12  W.  U.  Hrt8. 

Se«  Uirlov  v.  UJrl.-v.  25  lionv.  2vy.  *  AV  .MurH.lin^  ^ru•.l^  J  Drew.  fiOl. 


MISCEI.LANKOUS    I'KAUDB.  271 

Tlic  priiiciplo  has  been  licld  even  to  apply  to  a  case  wlicre  an 
arran^L-HR'nt  was  entered  into  Ijetween  tlie  orip;in;il  dunor  and 
creator  of  the  jiowcr  iind  any  of  tlie  ohjeets  of  the  jxiwer,  to 
henetit  perfions  olhtT  than  those  within  tlie  powur.'  'J'lie 
principle  that  the  donee  of  a  ]>ower  may  not  aj)point  to  a  jut- 
son  who  is  not  an  object  of  the  power  applies  even  althon^h 
the  ai)pointce  is  not  privy  to  tlie  intentions  of  the  donee  of 
the  power.  The  desi^ni  to  defeat  the  i)urpose  for  which  the 
power  was  created  will  stand  just  the  same  whether  the 
appointee  was  aware  of  it  or  not.^  AVhere,  accordingly,  a 
married  woman,  having  a  power  to  appoint  a  fund  of  which  she 
received  the  income  for  lier  life  among  her  children,  appointed 
the  whole  fund  at  her  death  in  favor  of  lier  daughter,  in  order 
that  thereout  the  daughter  should  benefit  her  father,  relying 
on  the  influence  which  the  father  would  have  over  her  to  carry 
out  the  secret  arrangement,  the  ap])ointment  was  held  invalid, 
although  the  daughter  was  not  informed  of  the  mother's  inten- 
tion until  after  her  mother's  death." 

Although  children  may  contract  with  each  other  to  give 
to  a  parent,  who  has  power  to  distribute  property  among  them, 
some  advantage  which  the  parent,  without  their  contract  with 
each  other,  would  not  have,*  a  transaction  of  the  sort  cannot 
be  upheld  if,  taken  as  a  whole,  it  appears  not  to  be  a  hona  fide 
family  arrangement,  but  to  have  been  entered  into  in  fraud  of 
the  power,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  benefit  to  a  person  who 
was  by  the  donor  excluded  from  being  an  appointee  or  from 
deriving  any  advantage  from  the  exercise  of  the  power.' 

There  is  a  fraud  upon  a  power,  not  only  where  it  is  exer- 
cised in  favor  of  persons  who  are  not  the  proper  objects  of  the 
power,  but  also  where  it  is  exercised  for  purposes  foreign  to  those 


>  Leo  f.  Fornie.  1  B»\iv.  483.  *  Davis  v.  I'lhill,  1  Sw.  13G. 

*  Rf  Mnrsdcn's  Trusts,  4  Drew.  001.  •  Agassiz  v.  bquire,  lb  Beav.  431. 

•  Ih.     feoe  Ranking  i'.  Barnes,  12  W. 
R.  5C8. 


'2T2  miscellam;«»i  s   ruAi  ds. 

for  wliifli  the  powtr  was  created.'  The  donee  of  the  power  sliall, 
at  the  time  of  the  exercise  of  the  i)owcr.  and  for  any  ]>urj)ose  for 
which  it  is  used,  act  witli  p)od  faitli  and  sincerity,  and  with  an 
entire  and  sin^de  virw  to  the  real  |)nri)ose  and  ohject  of  the 
]>ower,  and  not  for  the  i>uri)ose  of  accomi)lishin^  or  carryin'jf  into 
eliect  anv  ohject  which  is  hi-yoiid  tlic  jMirpose  and  intent  of 
the  power.'  It  is  MccordiiiLrly,  a  fraud  npon  a  power,  if  a  man 
havin<;  a  power  to  appi»int  anionic  two  sisters  ajipoints  tlie 
whole  to  one  of  thcin.  it  bcin:,'  understood  that  she  was  only 
to  receive  one  moiety  of  the  fund  to  her  own  use,  and  was  to 
allow  the  other  to  accuniulatc,  sulijcct  to  some  future  arrange- 
ment.^ In  determining  whether  there  is  a  fraud  upon  a  power, 
the  court  looks  to  the  ])ur]>osc  with  which  the  i^nver  was  exer- 
cised.* In  Scroggs  i\  Scroggs,*  the  consent  of  a  trustee  was 
necessary  to  the  exercise  of  a  ]»ow».'r,  and  the  donee  of  the 
]>.)\vcr  procured  the  trustee's  consent  hy  a  false  rejtresentation, 
to  wliicli  the  a})pointee  does  not  appear  to  have  been  in  any 
wav  a  party  ;  yet  the  court  set  aside  the  api)ointnient.* 

If  there  be  a  fraudulent  arrangement  between  the  donee  of 
a  power  and  the  api)ointee,  tlie  bad  jiurpn.-i-  will,  in  general, 
vitiate  the  a])itointment  ui  toto,  and  not  merely  the  i>art  to 
wliich  the  fraud  extends.'  A]»pointments  to  children,  accord- 
inglv,  in  ]»art  fraudulent,  have  almost  always  been  avoided 
altogether.*  In  cases,  however,  Avhere  the  evidence  enables 
tlie  court  to  distinguish  what  is  attributable  to  an  authorized 
from  what  is  attributable  to  an  unantliorizcd  ]'nrposi',  the  bad 
purpose  will  not  ailect  the  whole  ajtpointmcnt.'-'  80  when 
there  is   a  sum   of  nutney   to   be    ai>pointed    among    childivn, 

•  Toplinm  r.  Duke  of  rorllaiul,  1  I).  '  I)nubi'riy  t'.  rocklmrn.  1  Mit.  f.i'rt. 
J    <t  s   :,',().                                                             *    //'.      KaniiiT  f.  Martin,  2  Sim.  Ml  ; 

'  l>iik<'  of  Portland  r  Ti'jilmin,  11  IL       Arnold  ,-.  Iliirdwicki-,  7  Sim.  \WA.     Sco 
L.  r>4,  jtr  Lord  \Vcnlljury.  Uowlry  '•.  Uowli-y.  Kny.  2.'iit. 

*  iL'A'L                           '  •  Tojilium   f.  l)"iikc  of  Portland,  1  D. 
*T<.|<linm   f.  Duke  of  Portland.  1  I».       .1    it-  S.   f»T2  .    ;.<r   'I'lirnfr,    L.  .1.     ."^po 

J.  <t  S.  fiTK.  (urvrr    v.    KitlianlH,    27    Hcnv.    488; 

*  Ainl.i.  272.  Kankini;  v.  narni's,  12  W.  i{.  r>rt5. 

•  J'er  Turn..-r.  L.  .1..  1  I>.  J.  «t  S.  :.7o. 


illSt'ELl.AMEUUfc;    I'liALlJS.  liT.'J 

although  an  appointment  to  one  cliild  may  be  void  on  account 
of  a  cornipt  iigrceinent,  an  ajiprjintrnont  to  another  cliild, 
although  by  a  contemporaneous  deed,  if  it  can  be  severed 
from  the  previous  aj)pointment  so  as  not  to  form  part  of  the 
.'•aiMC  transaction,  will  be  valid. ^ 

Although  in  the  case  of  ai)pointment8  to  children,  a  fraud- 
ulent arraniionicnt  between  the  donee  of  the  power  and  the 
appointee  will,  in  general,  vitiate  the  wliolo  appointment,  a 
ditferent  doctrine  has  been  maintained  in  the  case  of  appoint- 
ments by  way  of  jointure.  The  appointment  will,  in  sucli 
cases,  be  only  vitiated  in  the  extent  to  which  it  is  all'ected  by 
the  fraud.^ 

It  was  formerly  held  that  illusory  appointments  under  a 
power  were  void  in  equity,  e.  </.,  api^ointments  of  a  nominal 
instead  of  a  substantial  share  to  one  of  the  members  of  a  class 
■where  power  was  given  to  appoint  among  them  all.  An 
appointment  of  this  kind  was  always  valid  at  law,  and  it  would 
perhaps  be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  principle  its  avoidance  in 
equity.     The  doctrine  has  been  abolished  by  statute.^ 

FRAUD  IN  THE  PREVENTION  BY  UNDUE  [MEANS  OF  ACTS  TO 
BE  DONE  FOR  THE  BENEFIT  OF  THIRD  PARTIES. 
There  is  fraud  against  which  a  court  of  equity  will  relieve 
if  a  man  be  prevented  by  undue  means  from  doing  an  act  for 
the  benefit  of  third  parties.  If  a  man  be  prevented  bv  duress 
undue  influence,  or  other  imdue  means,  from  executing  an 
instrnment,  the  court  will  treat  it  as  if  it  had  been  executed.^ 
When,  for  instance,  a  tenant  in  tail,  meaning  to  sutler  a 
recovery,  was  prevented  on  his  deathbed  frt.m  suiTering  it,  by 
the  fraud  of  the  person  whose  wife  was  entitled  in  remainder, 

'  Rowley  f.  Rowley,  Kay,  242.     See  *  11  Geo.   IV,  <t  1   W'm.  IV,  c.  46. 

Harrison  v.  Randall,  H  Ila.  Wt.  Butcher  v.  Butcher,  9  Ves.  382. 

'  Lane  v.  Taiie,  Anib.  -in  ;   Alevn  >\  *  Middleton  t;.  Middleton,  1  J.  it  W. 

15elcher,   1   Eden,  1:^8.  Sui;.  Pow.  GIO.  96. 
See  Rowley  t-.  Rowley,  Kay,  25y. 


274  iiiscEi.i-ANKors  fijauds. 

it  was  held  that  the  estate  oii^'ht  to  he  luld  :is  if  the  recovery 
bad  been  perlccted,  thou^di  even  in  favor  of  a  volunteer,  and 
n'minst  one  nut  a  partv  to  the  fraud.*  JSo  also  when  a  pei-son 
interested  in  the  noii-exeeution  of  a  jM.wer  has  the  deed 
creating'  the  power  in  his  custody,  and  the  duuee  of  the  power, 
wtshin"-  to  execute  it,  sends  for  tlio  deed,  which  the  party 
refuses  to  deliver,  and  therenpon  the  donee  dues  an  act  with 
an  intent  to  execute  the  power,  equity  will  uphuld  the 
execution,  althuugh  defective  by  reason  of  the  fraud  in  the 
person  who  was  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  ori^'inal  settlement.^ 
But  the  mere  refusd  ur  ne;j:lect  of  an  attorney  with  whuui  a 
deed  containing  a  power  has  been  deposited,  to  deliver  it  up 
to  the  donee  of  the  power,  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  is  no 
ground  for  relief  against  informality.'  Ivpiity  would  extend 
the  relief  to  a  case  where  a  wife,  having  a  i>ower  vi'  revocation 
over  an  e.^-tate  vested  in  her  Imsband,  is  desirous  to  exercise  it; 
but  the  husband  hinders  anybody  from  coming  to  her,  or 
prevents  the  execution,  or  obstructs  the  engrossing  of  the 
deed  of  revocation.'' 

The  ]>rinciplc  applies  to  cases  where  a  man  has  been 
induced  by  false  ])romises  to  abstain  iVum  doing  an  act  fur 
the  benefit  of  third  parties.  If,  for  example,  a  testator  bo 
induced  to  omit  the  insertion  in  his  will  of  a  fonnal  provision 
for  any  intended  object  of  his  bounty,  ui)on  the  faith  of  a.'^sur- 
ances  givi'ii  bv  his  heir  ur  other  persun,  wliu  wuuKl  tiike  hir, 
])ropirtv  in  the  event  id'  his  umitting  to  insert  the  particular 
bequest  in  his  will,  that  his,  the  testator's,  wishes  shall  bo 
executed  as  jMiiutually  and  fully  as  if  the  bequest  were 
formally  made,  this  i)romise  and  undertaking  will  raise  a  trust, 

'  LuUrcll  I'.  fUmiii^,  <it.  1 1  Vos.  038 ;  *  Hnckcll  i-.  nionkhorn.  ft  Iln.  131. 

14  ViH.  2y<»;    1  J.  «t  NV.  Vi).  *  l'i:,','<itt  v.  Vvuru-r,  Coin  'J.'iK  ;   IVcc. 

»  Si'f  .*J  t'h.  Ci»  07,  h:i.  si.  f''*.  ''•'<.  1"*^.  <"'••  •'" '  ;  ^  "'"'  '•  •■'''■•'■'I'T.  1    r.  Wms. 

122;   Word  r.  IWhiIIi,  clt.  rH'li.  Cn.  O'.t.  Il.'.l  ;   So^cnivi"   i>.    Kirwaii,   H.-ritl.    ir.7; 

S«'fV<»rt.:!K3;  Uuokoll  r.  HIcnklKjrn,  a  lliilklcy  r.  Willfonl.  '1  l\.  it   I'iii.   loj; 

Hii.  i:Jl ;  \V<»t  i:  Hay,  Kny,  as.'i.  Nunni-y  v.  Williams, 'J2  lkav.45i 


Mlfil'KI-I.ANnors    FRAI'DS.  273 

wliicli,  tlioiigli  not  avaiIal)lo  at  law,  will  lie  enforced  in  equity 
on  the  ground  offraud.^*  80,  also,  if  a  father  devises  an 
estate  to  one  son,  wlio  engages,  if  the  estate  is  devised  to  him, 
to  give  a  certain  amount  of  money  to  another  son,  the  ])romise 
will  be  enforced  in  equity.'^  An  engagement  of  the  kind 
alluded  to  may  l)e  entered  into  not  oidy  hy  words,  but  by 
silent  assent  to  such  a  proposed  undertaking,  which  will  equally 
raise  a  trust.' 

FRAUDULENT    SUPPRESSION    OR    PESTRUCTION    OF   DEEDS 

AKD   OTHER   INSTRUMENTS    IN   VIOLATION   OF   OR 

INJURY  TO  THE   RIGHTS   OF   OTHERS. 

If  an  heir  shcmld  suppress  deeds,  wills,  etc.,  in  order  to 
prevent  another  party,  as  grantee  or  devisee,  from  obtaining 
the  estate  vested  in  him  thereby,  courts  of  equity,  upon  due 
proof  by  other  evidence,  would  grant  relief,  and  perpetuate 
the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  estate  in  such  grantee  or 
devisee.*  If  the  contents  of  a  suppressed  or  destroj^ed  instroi- 
ment  are  proved,  the  party  will  receive  the  same  benelit  as  if 
the  instrument  were  produced.' 

AVhere  there  has  been  a  spoliation  or  suppression  of  instru- 
ments, wliicli  might  have  thrown  light  upon  a  suit,  everything 
will   be   presumed   against  the   party  by  whose   agent  such 

»  Dutton  V.  Pool,  1  Vent.  318  ;  Thynn  '  Slickland  v.  Alilrid^e,  9  Ves.  519. 

v.  Tliyiin,  1  Verii.  '290  ;  Scllack  v.  Har-  '  Uyriie  v.  (iodfrcj-,  4  Ves.  10;  Paine 

ris.  r>  Vin.  Ab.  r>21  ;  Dcvunisli  )•.  liaiiies,  v.  Hall,  IS  Vos.  47"!. 

I'rcc.  Ch.    3;  Olilham  v.  Liti  htield,  2  *  Hunt   v.   Matthews.   1  Vera.  40S  ; 

Vern.  50(5;  2  Freem.  Ch.  284;  Cham-  'Wnnioiir  t'.  Beri.sford,  ib.  452,  cit.  2  I', 

berlaine  r.  Clianiberlaino,  2  Freem.  Ch.  Wm.  74S,  749;  Dal.ston  v.  Coatsworth, 

34;  Ucech  v.  Kennisnte,  Amb.  67;  Bar-  1  l\  Wnis.  731  ;  Finch  i-.  Newnham.  2 

row  7'.  Grecnoiip:!!,  3  Ves  153  ;   Mestaer  Vern.  211") ;  Barnesley  '•.  Powell,  1  Ve.<. 

V.  (;ilU'si)ie,  11  Ves.  t'.3S;  Chamberlaine  289;  Tiu-ker  c  rhipp?!,  3  Atk.  300.  bee 

V.  Agar,  2  V.  ik  B.  202;  I'oiliiiore  c.  Gun-  Hornby  v.  .Mateha'n,  10  Sim.  325. 

ning,  7  Sim.  GGU;  Uussell )'.  Jackson,  10  'Saltern    i'.    Melhuish,     Amb.    247; 

Ha.  213.  Cowpcr  v.  Cowper,  2  P.  Wms.  719. 


*  In  no  case  has  a  party  been  successful  when  a  reasonable  doubt  in 
resrard  to  the  promise  could  be  entertained.  Gaither  r.  Gaithcr,  3  ild.  Cb, 
158;  Richardson  r.  Adam>.  10  Yem.  273. 


'J7G  Miscr.i.i.AM'.ors   iKAins. 

ppolifttion  and  sui>i>ri'ssioii  liavi>  hocii  |tr:icticc(l,  and  cvcrv 
]>rcsuin|>tiun  will  lie  iiiatlc  in  I'avor  ot'  the  pnutu  facie  rights 
(»f  the  either  party.' 

Prima  facie  the  cnneellation  of  a  deed  is  evidence  of  its 
discharge,  but  in  a  court  of  ecjuity  it  is  open  to  the  i>arty 
claiming  under  the  deed  to  Au>\\  that  it  was  cancelled  hy 
fraud,  mistake,  or  accident.  AVhere  the  deed  has  always  been 
in  the  hands  of  the  party  heneticially  interested  under  it, 
should  it  appear  to  have  been  cancelled,  the  proof  that  this 
was  done  by  fraud  would  re.-t  witli  that  ]iarty  ;  l)Ut  wlu-re  the 
deed  Las  constantly  reniaine<l  in  the  power  of  the  maker 
thereof,  or  has  been  deposited  by  him  with  a  i)erson  of  Ids 
own  selection,  circumstances  may  throw  upon  the  nuiker  of  the 
deed  the  onus  of  showing  not  only  that  such  deed  is  cancelled, 
but  that  the  obligation  it  imposed  has  been  duly  discharged 
and  satisfied.' 

FRAUD    IN    SETTING    UP  AN    INSTKU-MKNT    OI'.TAIXED    FOIi 
ONE  PURPOSE  FOR  ANOTHER   PURPOSE. 

Where  a  man  obtains  an  instrument  or  conveyance  from 
another,  in  order  to  answer  one  jjarticular  purjw.se,  but  after- 
wards makes  use  (tf  it  for  another,  a  court  of  equity  will 
relieve  under  the  head  of  fraud.  It  is  immaterial  that  the 
conveyance  may  be  ])erfected  by  act  of  record.^  AVhere, 
accordingly,  a  father,  mIio  was  a  tenant  f<'r  life  of  real  estate, 
fearing  that  the  husliand  of  his  daughti-r,  who  was  tenant  in 
tail  of  the  i>roj»erty,  would  waste  the  i»roperty,  imlueed  him 
and  the  daughter  to  join  in  a  recovery,  with  a  view  to  jtroteet- 
ing  the  j)roperty  from  his  creditors,  and  the  pro])erty  wjks 
conveyed  to  the  fatlu-r  for  a  mere  nominal   sum,  the  recovery 

•  r.owlcH  r.  Slunrt.  1  Srli.  .t  I.<f.  222;  »  Sluyfki'n  v.  Hunter,  1  M.r.  -45. 

Evt/iti    V.    Kvton,    1    Ilro.  1'.  ('.    l.'>:{;  »  Yoiitig  i.  IVialu-y,  2  .\tk.  '.iiM^, 

ifainiMl'n  r.  'ilii(ii|icl<>n.  ih.  2ri2  ;    Sqiul- 
in«j  f.  TwUty,  btl.  (.a.  Cb.  70. 


MLSC'KLLANKOLS    rKAUDH.  277 

■vras  set  aside  :it  tlio  suit  uf  tlio  assignees  in  insolvency  of  Lis 
son-in-law.' 

FRAUD   IN    ASSIGX^IENTS,    BY    ASSIGNEES,   ETC. 

An  assignment  by  the  assignee  of  a  lease  or  term  is  not  a 
fraudulent  assignment.  If  a  man '  assign  noininally  only, 
retaining  the  beneficial  enjoyment,  it  is  fraudulent,  because 
while  lie  assumes  to  one  thing,  he  really  does  another.  lie 
retains  the  benefit,  and,  by  a  false  act,  endeavors  to  get  rid  (4' 
the  burthen.  Jhit  if  he  assigns  really,  getting  rid  of  the 
burthen,  and  giving  uj)  really  the  benefit  also  (if  any)  to  his 
assignee,  it  is  not  a  fraudulent  act.  His  motive  for  parting 
with  it,  or  the  other's  motive  for  receiving  it,  are  not  enough 
to  make  it  fraudulent,,  if  the  act  done  be  a  real  act,  intended 
really  to  operate  as  it  appears  to  do.  The  assignment  even  to 
a  beggar  is  not  fraudulent,  although  made  in  order  to  avoid 
payment  of  a  sum  of  money  chargeable  on  the  property  under 
the  original  agreement.  The  motive  which  induces  the  as- 
signee to  assign  over  has  no  bearing  upon  the  question 
whether  the  assignment  be  fraudulent  or  not,  provided  the 
assignment  is  real  and  intended  to  o])erate,  as  it  appears  to 
operate.' 

"Where  the  assignee  of  a  lease,  subject  to  a  mortgage,  in- 
duced the  lessor,  a  friend  and  client,  to  take  advantage  of  a 
forfeiture,  which  was  committed  by  the  lessee  exj)ressly  for 
that  purpose,  and,  after  the  forfeiture  was  complete,  induced 
the  lessor  to  grant  him  a  new  lease  of  the  property  on  the 
same  terms,  the  court  declared  that  the  new  lease  was  subject 
to  the  mortgage.' 

'  Young  V.  Pcacliy,  2  Atk.  25G.     See  '  Taylor  v.  Slium,  1  B.  ik  P.  21 ;  Ons- 

Wilkinson  v.  Ihaytield.  2  Vcrn.    307;  low  r.  Corrie,   2  Madd.  340;    Fagg  r. 

Goodricke  v.   Brown,   2  Frccni.  18i»,  1  Dobie,  3  Y.  tfc  C.  lOi. 

Ch.  Cft.  49 ;  Evans  v.  Bicknell,  6  Yes.  *  Hughes  v.  Howard,  25  Beav.  575. 
191 ;  Pickett  v.  Loggou,  14  Yes.  234. 


*J78  MISCI'.l.LANKOrS    rUAl  I)S. 

FK.M  I)    UV    AM)    I  IM)N    COMPANIES. 
Fraud  wliifli  cuiisists  in  iiii.-«ri'i>rostMit:iti(.ii  t»r  conpcalment 
on  the  ])art  of  companies  has  been  already  ctdisithivd ;   but 
there   arc   otlier   nets   on    the   part  of   companies  wliieh   are 
fraudulent  in  tlie  contemplation  of  a  court  of  ecjuity. 

The  creditor  of  a  company  \vli<^  has  recovered  judgment 
against  the  company  may,  unless  in  the  case  of  comi)anies 
within  the  Comi)anies'  Act,  1S<;2,*  proceed  to  execution  at 
bis  pleasure  a<;ainst  any  particular  shareholder;*  but  if  a  com- 
pany enter  into'an  aijreement  with  one  of  its  creditors  that  he 
shall  recover  judgment  against  the  company,  and  take  out 
execution  against  a  particular  shareholder,  there  is  fraud, 
against  which  relief  may  be  had  in  ecpiity.'  The  rule  that  a 
partner  cannot  buy  in  a  debt,  and  enforce  it  against  Ins  copart- 
ners applies  equally  as  between  shareholders  in  joint  stock 
companies.* 

A  shareholder  in  a  company  acting  hand  JiJe  may  sell  his 
shares  to  another  person,  or  give  him  money  to  take  the  shares, 
if  tbe  transaction  be  open  and  not  merely  coh»rable;  but  if  a 
shareholder  gets  rid  of  liis  shares  by  assigning  them  to  a 
pauper,  or  to  a  person  over  whom  he  has  entire  control,  in 
order  to  avoid  ])aying  his  share  ot  the  debts  of  the  company, 
and  to  throw  them  upon  the  other  shareholders,  the  transaction 
is  fraudulent.' 

■\Vhere  shares  in  a  joint  stock  company  have  been  issued 
fraudulently,  a  hond  fide  purchaser  of  these  ^iian-s  in  the 
market,  betore  any  ])ill  has  been  tiled  to  impeach  the  transac- 
tion, is  entitled,  on  a  winding-up  of  the  company,  notwith- 
standing the  frau<l,  and  iiotwithstamling  that  he  lu.ught  the 
shares  at  a  very  great  discount,  to  prove  on  e<|u:il  terms  with 

'  2.'.  A  20  Viet.  c.  H'.t.  ;■?  RS.  2ol.  Kiiilwny  Co..  1  K.  *  .1.  .199  ;  Bnrgntc  v. 

»  r;rf..rrf.  Nixon,  v:!  I'.iuv.  .'iHO  ;  IVck  Sli<.rlrul;r»'.  T)  H.  I-  -''7- 

r  T)i'ftn   .'I  Jur   N    S    II.  *  \VtMxlhnmn  r.  AnKloAufltrnlian,  Ac. 

•Tnvior  r.    liu'irh.-H.   2  .».  .t    L.    2» ;  Co.,  2  D.  .1.  A  S.  ItVJ. 

FornUi'ouiili  v.  l^n.l.r,  i:.  L..I.  il,.  -l.-.H.  •  Sinicr'H  Cn.-*..,    :t:.   Hcnv.  393.     Sco 

4  Utt.  Ca.  373;  Horn  v.  Kilkenny,  Ac.  Ez-parU  Oarnlin,  10  \\  .  11.  Altl. 


MISCELLANEOUS    FRAUDS.  279 

the  other  pharolioldcrs  of  the  company  wlio  l)oii;;lit  tljcir 
elmres  at  par;  but  this  privilege  does  not  extend  to  any  i)er- 
son  who  purcliased  his  shares  after  tlic  fih'ng  of  tlie  bill,  uidesH 
hirf  vendor  was  a  Inrnd  fide  licldiT  df  the  shares  Ijefore  bill 
iilcMi,  and  the  ^;<?^i' of  proof  that  such  was  the  case  id  upon 
liini.^ 

FRAUD  UPON  THE  MORTMAIN  LAWS. 
The  court  will  relievo  against  a  fraud  on  the  Mortmain 
laws.  The  statute  9  Geo.  II,  cannot  be  evaded  by  a  secret 
trust,  and  the  heir  may  compel  the  devisee  to  disclose  any 
promise  which  he  may  have  made  to  the  testator  to  devote 
the  land  to  charity ;  *  and  such  promise,  if  denied  by  the 
devisee,  may  be  proved  by  evidence  aliunde?  The  trust,  by 
whatever  means  established,  invalidates  the  devise.  This 
doctrine  evidently  assumes  that  the  trust,  if  legal,  would  have 
been  binding  on  the  conscience  of,  and  might  have  been  en- 
forced against,  the  devisee;  and  this  ground  failing,  the  rule 
does  not  apply  :  as  where  a  testator,  after  devising  lands  by  a 
will  duly  attested,  declares  a  trust  in  favor  of  a  charity  by  an 
unattested  paper  or  by  parol,  the  statute  law,  which  atFords  to 
the  devisee  a  valid  defence  against  any  claim  on  the  part  of 
the  charity,  of  course  equally  defends  him  against  the  claim  of 
the  heir,  founded  on  the  charitable  trust.''  The  case  would 
be  different,  however,  if  the  devisee  had  prevailed  on  the 
testator  to  give  him  the  estate  absolutely,  under  an  assurance 
that  the  unattested  paper  was  a  sufficient  declaration  of  trust 
for  the  charity,^  or  under  a  promise  that  if  the  estate  were 
devised  to  him,  he  would  perform  the  trust.*' 

'  Barnard  v.  Bncrshaw.  1  IT.  <fe  M.  69.  *  Adlinijton  r  Cann,  3  Atk.  141 ;  cit. 

'  Boson  V.  iStatham.  1  E.l.  SOS ;  Muc-  9  Vi-s.  .M'.!;  Wall-jravc  v.  Tcbbs.  2  K. 

kleston  V.  Brown,  G  Vos.  h'l ;  Stickland  <t  J.  313 ;  Lomax  v.  lliple}-,  3  Sm.  ib  G. 

v.  AUlrul::o,  9  Ves.  516  ;  Baine  r.  UuU,  48. 

18  Ves.  47").  '  See  Adlincrton  r.  Cann.  3  Atk.  152. 

'  Edwards  r.  Bike,  1  Ed.  207,  1  Cox,  "  lUissell  r.  Jackson,  M  Ha.  204.  See 

17.  Jaruian  on  Wills,  voL  1,  p.  213. 


280  MISCELLANEOUS    FHAIDS. 

ruAiDs  (»N  Tin:  law  of  roin'Krrrui:. 

A  court  of  c<iuity  ^vill  relieve  n<^aiii8t  Iruiids  uu  tliu  law  ol" 
forfeiture. 

The  crown  coniini^  in  on  the  fot^t  of  an  attainder  has  all 
the  ri:;hts  of  the  i>arty  forfeiting;,  and  ha.s  the  Kinie  ecpiity  to 
be  relieved  ai,'ainst  c<^nveyancc8  on  the  •,aound  of  fraud  as  he 
would  have.  The  crown,  on  a  forfeiture,  takes  the  estate,  sub- 
ject to  all  charrccs  and  incumbrances  which  would  have  bound 
the  i»arty  forfeitini;,  and  is  bound,  too,  thereby,  where  there  is 
no  fraud,  in  respect  of  the  crown.  U,  however,  the  attainted 
party  has  voluntarily  and  dcsicjnedly  made  a  grant  or  convey- 
ance to  cncuinber  his  estate,  with  a  view  to  high  treason,  the 
cro>vn,  and  those  taking  from  it,  would  have  a  right  to  dispute 
that  demand,  and  be  delivered  therefrom,  as  fraudulent.- 

If  a  man  gives  an  estate  to  A  and  his  heirs,  but  in  case  he 
commits  high  treason,  over  to  another,  this  is  a  vt»id  limitation, 
because  it  is  an  invasion  of  the  laws  of  forfeiture.^  So  also  a 
man  may  substitute  another  legatee  or  executor,  if  the  first 
should  die  during  the  life  of  the  testator,  but  he  cannot  extend 
it  beyond  the  term  of  his  own  life.^ 

FRAUD  UPON  THE  BANKRUPT  LAWS. 

The  ]>rinciple  of  the  nankruj)t  laws  being  the  equal  dis- 
tribution of  the  proi)erty  and  etlects  of  a  bankrupt  among  his 
creditors,*  acts  which  are  done  with  the  t>bject  of  preventing 
an  equal  distribution  of  the  property  and  effects  of  a  bankruj)t 
among  his  creditors  are  fraudulent  within  the  meaning  of  those 
laws.'  The  assignment,  accordingly,  by  a  man  of  the  whole  of 
his  estate  and  elfects,  or  of  the  whole  with  a  cobrable  excej)- 


•  Duko  of  licdford  v.   C(»ko,  2   Vch.  «  Worsloy  t».  Pe  Mnttog,  1  Hurr. -ITfi. 

115  Wooilliousc    I'.    .Murrriy,  L.  U.    2  U.  liL 

'Carte  V.  Carlo,  a  Alk.  18U;    Auib.       037. 
3-1  •  Young  V.  Wuuil,  8  Exch.  231. 

'•76. 


MTSCELLAXrorS    FRAl'DS.  281 

tion  of  part  only,  under  siicli  circumstances  as  necessarily  to 
tlofeat  or  delay  lils  creditors,  is  a  fraud  within  the  meaning  of 
those  laws,  although  there  be  no  actual  moral  fraud.*  An  ex- 
ception, iiowever,  has  been  grafted  on  the  general  principle. 
Tlie  assignment  by  a  trader  of  liis  proj)erty  and  eftects  fur  a 
present  advance  of  imuiey  is  not  necessarily  a  fraud  on  the 
J'aidvrupt  laws,  though  the  whole  of  his  stock,  present  and 
future,  is  included  in  the  conveyance.  If  the  conveyance  be 
made  hond  fide  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  carry  on 
his  business,  it  cannot  be  called  a  fraudulent  act  as  tending  to 
defeat  or  delay  creditors,*  although  the  property  or  effects  have 
been  sold  or  pledged  for  a  sum  less  than  their  value.  The 
assigmnent  by  a  trader  of  all  his  property  and  effects  for  a 
present  advance  of  part  of  their  value  is  not  necessarily  a  fraud 
on  creditors  under  the  Bankrupt  laws.  The  advance  may  be 
the  means  of  enabling  him  to  go  on  with  his  trade,  and  so  the 
transaction  may  be  beneficial  for  the  creditors.  A  lona  fide 
sale  of  goods  in  a  season  of  pressure  by  a  trader  for  whatever 
ready  money  can  be  obtained  is  valid,  though  the  price  be 
small.  The  proportion  which  the  sum  raised  bears  to  the  value 
of  the  property  sold  or  j)ledged,  is  a  circumstance  to  be  con- 
sidered in  determining  Mdiether  the  transaction  is  hona  fide  or 
not,  but  is  not  conclusive  that  it  is  fraudulent.^  It  is  for  the 
court  or  the  jury  to  say  whether,  under  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  the  effect  of  the  assignment  is  to  delay  or  defeat 
creditors  *  If  there  was  in  the  minds  of  the  parties  the  sin- 
ister object  of  defeating  or  delaying  creditors,  the  advance  of 

•  Ilooper  V.  Smith,  1  W.  Bl.  44 1  ,  Sie-  Bell  v.  Simpson,  2  11.  &.  N.  410.  See  Ex- 

bcrt  r.  SpooiuT,  1  M.  ifc  W.  715  ;  Stani,nT  jiaric  Wenslev,  1  i>.  J.  «t  S.  281 ;  Mercer 

V.  Wilkin:),  lit  Be;iv.  r.2('>;   Smitli  ;■.  C:ui-  v.  IVler.son,  L.  II.  .3  E.xch.  104. 
nan,  2  K.  it  H.  :f.-> ;  Ki-parte  IManil.  f.  ]).  '  Lee  v.  Hart,   11   Kxch.   SSO;   Bittle- 

M.  it  G.  757 :  Graham  v.  Chnpniaii,  12  0.  stone  v.  Cooke,  G  E.  it  B.  307,  300  ;  Pen- 

B   85;  Leake  I'.  Young:,  5  E.  it  B.  965;  nell  v.  R.')'noKls,   11   C   B.  X.   S.  7m9; 

Smltli  f.  Timms,  1  H.  ifeC.  85fi;  Youn^  Siirubsoie  i-.  Sussams,   16   C.   B.  N.  S. 

c.  Fletcher.  3  IL  &  C.  742;   Woodhou.se  453. 
V.  Murray.  L.  U.  2  tj.  B.  637.  *  ///.     Wooilhonse  a  Murray,  L.  B*2. 

'  Bittlestone  v.  Cooke.  6  E.  <fe  B.  307 ;  Q.  Ij.  637. 

19 


282  MiscKi.T.ANT.ors   FiJArn.-^. 

cvcMi  a  sul>st:mtial  p:irt  ttftlio  value  of  tlio  property  at  the  tiino 
ot'  till'  ;i>sii;MiiU'nt  wiMiliI  not  iiKiko  tiir  transaction  v;ili«l.  l>ut 
the  court  will  lutt  lu»Ul  that  a  dci-d  o(»nvcyinj;  i)ropL'rty  iu  con- 
si  Jurat  it>n  of  a  present  advance  which  bears  a  huhstantial  pro- 
portion to  the  value  of  the  ])roperty,  is  invalid,  unless  it  is  bat- 
isfied  that  there  exists  an  intention  to  defeat  t>r  delay,  and  con- 
6e<pK'ntly  t<»  defraud  credit(»rs;  and  that  oKjcct  must  be  the 
object  not  only  of  the  bankrupt  but  also  of  the  party  who  ie 
dealiuij:  with  him.  A  ])ersi.)n  dealinj;  bond  Jide  with  the  bank- 
ru}»t  wi»uld  be  safe.  Unless  he  knows,  or,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  transaction,  nnist  be  taken  necessarily  to  have  known, 
that  tlic  object  was  to  defeat  or  delay  creditors,  the  deed  can- 
not be  impeached.^  A  conveyance  by  a  trader  of  all  his  jiroj)- 
crty  was  held  fraudulent  upon  creditors  within  the  meaning  of 
the  bankruptcy  laws,  even  though  made  in  consideration  of 
marriage,  it  being  shown  that  the  wite  was  cognisant  of  the 
embarrassed  comlition  of  tlie  Inisl Kind's  atl'airs.* 

There  are  authorities  to  show  that  when  a  conveyance  is 
made  by  a  trader  of  all  his  property  and  elfects,  and  the  con- 
veyance is  nuule  in  part  for  a  bygone  or  pre-existing  debt,  the 
transaction  is  a  fraud  upon  creditors  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Bankrupt  laws,  upnn  the  princii)le  that  in  such  v\\>i..^  the  trader 
does  not  get  an  e<piivalent.*  Ihit  according  to  other  author- 
ities, the  fact  that  the  consideration  for  which  the  conveyance 
may  be  made  is  in  part  an  ohl  or  j^re-existing  debt,  is  \\o{  j^er 
se  a  fraud  upon  creditors  within  the  meaning  of  those  laws, 
though  the  effect  may  be  to  stop  the  bu>iness  of  the  trader.* 
The  assignment  by  a  man  of  all  his  ])roperfy  with  a  view  to 
release  and  relieve  the  proi)erty  from  the  charges  already  laid 

'  PonnfU  I'.  RfvnoItlH.  1 1  ('.  B.  N.  S.  Rinitli  v.  Cnnnnn,  2  K.  A  15.  .IS;  Tjioon  v. 

722;  KriiHor  v.  Li'-vy.  rt  II.  A  N.  KV  Sco  Liiri-n.  '.VI  \,.  .1.  tli.  ;ilti;  (Iri.nUil  liiiiik- 

lU- ColetncTc,  L.  H."  1  (  li.  App.  12M.  in:,' Co.   v.  ('•.Icinan.  :»  (iiir.   11;   tJood- 

*  Coloml/mc  v.  IVnlmll.  1   Siii.    tt  G.  rU-kc  v.  Taylor.  2  D.  J.  A-  S.  1 :{.'). 

22«.  *  Hc'H  •'•  iSimii.wn,  2  II.  »t  N.  410. 

'limliam  v.  Chapman,  12  C.  I).  b5; 


MI8CELLANEOU8    FRAUDS.  283 

on  it,  and  not  tn  i>:iy  a  paHt  del)t  only,  is  valid.'  »So  also  an 
assii^nmcnt  l»y  a  man  nj"  the  Mlude  <ii'  liis  property  in  con.sidcr- 
ation  of  a  bill  of  excliani^^e  hcin*;  taken  nji,  is  not  an  act  of 
bankruptcy.^  Xor  is  the  assignnjent  Ly  a  trader  of  all  his  ])roiH 
erty  as  security  for  an  advance  of  money,  ^vhich  he  afterwardp 
applies  in  payment  of  existing  debts,  necessarily  jraudiilent 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Bankrupt  laws.  In  order  to  make 
such  an  assignment  fraudulent,  the  lender  must  he  aware  that 
tho  borrower's  object  was  to  defeat  or  delay  his  creditors.' 

An  assignment  by  a  man,  not  of  the  whole  of  his  property 
and  effects,  but  of  his  property  and  effects,  with  a  real  an<l  sul)- 
stautial  exception,  is  not  a  fraud  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Bankrupt  laws.*  But  the  deed  is  invalid,  althongh  a  substan- 
tial part  of  the  property  and  effects  of  the  assignor  be  not  com- 
prised in  it,  if  the  necessary  consequence  of  it  ])e  to  cause 
insolvency,  or  to  defeat  and  delay  creditoi-s.'  The  rule  a])plie8 
with  peculiar  force,  if  the  fact  of  his  embarrassed  circnm.Ntances 
be  known,  or  must  be  necessarily  taken  to  be  kno\Am,  by  the 
assignee.* 

Objections,  however,  to  an  assignment  or  other  transaction, 
as  being  in  fraud  of  the  Banknipt  laws,  are  removed  if  it  is 
founded  on  a  legal  obligation  entered  into  hond  Jide  for  a  good 
and  valid  consideration.  Any  legal  obligation  which  would 
render  an  assignment  imimpeachable,  if  made  when  the  obliga- 
tion was  lirst  incurred,  will  protect  it  if  made  afterwards.' 
"Where  money  was  lent  on  a  verbal  promise  to  give  security, 
and  a  deed  was  executed,  two  days  before  bankruptcy,  purport- 

«  Whitmore  v.  Clar'ul^'e,  33  L.  J.  Q.  t-.  Chapman,  12  C.  B.  103;  Halo  v.  All- 

B.  87.  I'Utt,  18  C.   B.   52fi  ;  Youn;c:  v.  Waud,  S 

'  Mercer  v.  Peterson,  L.  R.  3  Exch.  Exch.  221 ;  ii!T-/)nr/e  Wensley,  1  D.  J.  «t 

104.  S.  281 ;  Goodricke  v.  Taylor,  2  D.  J.  J: 

»  Re  Colcmoro.  L.  R.  1  Cli.  App.  12S.  S.  1 3."). 

*  IVniu-U  «'.  Reynolds,  11  C.  B.  N.  S.  "  Ez-parte  Bailey,  3  D.  M.  «fr  G.  546; 

709  ;  Sniitli  i'.  Timins.  1  H.  ifc  C.  849.  Youn:;  v.  Fletcher'  3  II.  A"  C.  732.    See 

'  Stancer  i'.  Wilkin*.   19  Beav.   (i2ti;  Loak*'^  f.  Younjr,  .")  E.  it  K  '.'t'..V 

Smith  .'.  Cannan.  2   E.   it  B.   ATy;  Ex-  '  Harris  v.  Ritkctt.  4  H  4  >'.  1. 
parte  Bland,  6  D.  M.  <&  G.  757;  Graham 


2i>l  Mis(  i:i,lam:(»i  s   ikaids. 

iiu;  to  ho  an  ahsdluto  a.->i^niiu'nt  to  tlie  cTcditoi*  of  (he  cquitj 
of  rcnk'niption  in  snnic  ])n>|>erty,  it  wha  ht'hl  tliat  the  pronuse 
was  sufliciont  to  suji]>i«rf  the  <hrth'  So,  also,  whrrc  a  marriaije 
is  8(»U'tuni7A'il  upon  the  laith  of  a  former  fnoKi  tif/<'  contract  of 
niarriai^c,  it  pccnis  tlic  scttk-nicnt  will  he  maintained,  even 
though  at  the  time  c»f  the  solemnization  the  hushand  may  he 
insolvent  within  the  knowlcdjj^e  of  the  wife,  if  sncli  knowled^' 
is  not  shown  to  have  e.\i>ted  at  the  time  of  (he  contract,'  pro- 
vided no  act  of  liankniptey  has  been  actually  committed  at  the 
date  of  the  marriai^e  with  the  knowledi^c  of  the  wife.' 

Any  le^al  obligation  ])resently  to  assi*;n  which  is  not  of  the 
assignor's  own  creation  will  excuse  an  assignment  so  far  that  it 
shall  not  he  fi-amlulcMl  within  (he  meaning  (»f  the  Bankruj)t 
laws.*  If  the  obligation  be  his  own  creation,  as  if  incurred  by 
his  own  contract,  <»r  uj)on  his  nndertaking,  then  the  linutati(»n 
must  be  added  that  it  is  such  an  obligation  as  he  might  without 
fraud  have  incurred.' 

A  debtor  may  at  common  law  give  one  creditor  a  prefer- 
ence over  another ;  ^  but  there  is  fraud  against  the  Bankrupt 
laws,  if  a  man  in  contem])lation  of  bankruj)tcy  gives  one  cred- 
itor a  perferencc  over  another.  In  order  to  constitute  a  fraud- 
ulent preference,  the  transaction  must  not  only  be  in  contem- 
plation of  bankruptcy,  but  It  must  be  luinly  voluntary."  It" 
the  circumstances  of  the  party  who  makes  the  payment  or  ex- 
ecutes the  assignment,  are  at  the  time  of  the  ]iaymcnt,  or  of 
the  execution  of  the  assignment,  to  his  knowledge  in  such  a 
situati<jn,  that  he  must  reasonably  expect  bankruptcy  to  be  tin; 
necessary  conse<pieiu'e  of  his  act,  the  payment  or  the  assign- 
ment must  be   taken  to   have  been   made  in  (•on(emplation  of 


'  MorrUr.  Vonnl.l.s,  ir.  W.  U.  2  '  Hutfon  r  Cnitlwcll,  1   K.  JL  1\.   l.V 

'  FraJMT  I'.    TlmtiijiNun,  fi   .lur.    N     S.  *  Suj.rn,  pp.  '2\2,  '2\,i. 

6««;   4  I).  A  J.  «.')'.•.  '  l!r..\vM  /•.    K.-rnplon.  lH  L.  J.  C.  V. 

'  /''.    Si'u  ColoiiiljitH' r.  rciiliall,  1  .^m.  1T<»;  .slirub>ul»'  v.  ^uasnuin,  10  C  U.  N. 

^G.  V:2K.  §uprrt.  p.  202.  S.  4b'J. 

•  I'nyno  r.  Hornby,  25  Uenv.  280. 


MIS€ELLANi:()L\S    FKAIDS.  285 

bankruptcy.*  Tlicre  is  fraiululent  preterenc'C,  if  tlie  intent  ho 
to  give  ])ivlt'rcncu  in  the  event  of  ])aukniptcy.'~' 

It  was  fornierly  supposed  that,  in  order  to  pre\ent  a  trans- 
action being  void  as  a  fraudulent  ])reference,  it  was  neceasary 
to  show  sonietliing  like  coercion  or  pressure  on  the  ]jart  of  tlic 
creditor,  and  a  reluctant  yielding  by  the  debtor;  but  the  only 
question  in  cases  of  the  sort  is  wlietlier  tlie  act  is  voluntary  on 
the  i)art  of  the  debtor.  Pressure  is  not  necessai-y  to  prevent  a 
payment  or  assignment  from  being  a  fraudulent  preference.  It 
is  sufficient  that  the  payment  or  assignment  is  not  the  sponta- 
neous act  of  the  debtor.^  If  the  payment  or  assignment  origi- 
nates with,  oris  simply  by  the  act  and  will  of  the  debtor,  there 
is  a  fraudulent  preference ;  but,  if  the  creditor  demands  ])ay- 
ment,  pressure  is  not  necessary  on  his  part  to  take  it  out  of  the 
class  of  voluntary  acts.  A  mere  /Mmd  fide  demand  by  the 
creditor,  without  any  pressure,  is  sufficient  to  support  a  pay- 
ment or  transaction  made  in  consequence.*  A  request  bj  a 
surety  that  the  money  for  the  payment  of  which  he  is  ulti- 
mately responsible  may  be  paid  over  by  the  debtor  to  the  cred- 
itor, prevents  such  payment  by  the  debtor  from  being  a  volun- 
tary payment,  just  as  much  as  a  request  by  the  creditor  himself.' 

It  is  not,  however,  enough  to  remove  the  objection  of 
fraudulent  preference,  that  a  demand  for  payment  should  be 
made.  It  must  appeal-  tliat  the  demand  operated  on  the  mind 
of  the  debtor  in  inducing  him  to  make  the  payment.^  A 
demand  for  payment  will  not  of  itself  legalize  the  payjuent,  if 
the  debtor  was  uuiiiliuenccd  thereby,  and  the  payment  was 


'  Gibbins  v.  riiillip?,  7  B.  it  C.  520  ;  <  Mogs?  v.  Baker,  4  M.  k  W.  PvJS ;  Stra- 

Flook  »'.   Jonis,  4  \V\\\^.  20;  Aklrcil  v.  chan  v.  Barton,  11  Excli.  iVlT:  Brown  r. 

Constable,    4    y.   B.    G74;  Johnson    v.  Kempton,  lit  L.  J.  C.  P.  17i» ;  Jolmson  r. 

Fescnieyer,    3   L>.    A   J.    '24 ;   Ex-parte  Ftsemcver,  3  D.  «L-  J.  24 ;  Edwards  r. 

Wensley.  1  D.  J.  &  S.  281.  Glvn,  2  El.  <t  El.  43. 

'  Brown  v.  Kimpton,  19  L.  J.  C.  P.  *  Edwards  v.  Glvn,  2  EI.  &  El.  47. 

169.  •  Cook  V.  Pritchard,  0  Sc.  N.  U.  34; 

*  Johnaon  v.  Fescmeyer,  3  D.  A  J.  24.  Brown  v.  Kempton,  I'J  L.  J.  C.  P.  169. 


2S0  MiscELLAXnors  fratds. 

Tnndo  voluntarily  l»y  lliu  drlitor,  and  with  a  view  to  prejudice 
his  other  ereditui-s.* 

Other  eireuinstances,  bcpi<le8  n  demand  for  payment  on  the 
part  of  the  creditor,  may  reliut  tlie  ]>re.-<unipti(in  of  fraudulent 
l>referenee  on  the  ]>art  «if  tlu-  dilitur.  Although  the  trans- 
action is  apparently  volniitaiy,  if  ilio  cflect  of  the  evidence  is 
to  show  that  the  desire  to  irive  a  fraudulent  preference  was 
not  the  motive  o}>erating  on  the  delator  in  handin<;  over  his 
assets  to  the  ]>artieular  dehtor,  the  transaction  is  valid.'  If 
the  dehtor,  thouirh  he  was  aware  that  bankruptcy  was  unavoid- 
able, and  th<»u<^h  no  api)lication  was  nuide  for  paynuiit,  has 
paid  the  debt  simj>]y  in  dischari,'e  of  an  obligation  he  had 
entered  into  to  pay  it  on  a  given  day,  without  any  view  of 
giving  a  preference  to  the  particular  creditor  at  the  cxjhmisc  of 
the  rest,  the  payment  would  not  be  a  fraudulent  preference 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Bankrujit  laws.' 

The  knowledge  of  the  creditor  jireferred,  or  his  privity  to 
the  circumstances,  is  not  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
estimating  whether  a  transaction  is,  or  is  not,  a  fraudulent 
preference.  If  it  appear  that  a  demand  was  nuide  by  the 
creditor,  it  is  immaterial  that  he  may  have  been  aware  of  the 
insolvency  of  the  debtor.* 

If  ])roperty  be  granted  to  a  man  defeasible  on  his  bank- 
ruiitcv,  the  grant  is  good,  if  made  by  a  j)erson  other  than  the 
bankrui»t,  and  if  the  condition  is  e.\i)ress.'  But  the  law  is 
clearlv  settle<l  that  no  man  ])ossesse<l  ot'  pn-jiirty  can  reserve 
tliat  projicrty  to  hinisclf,  until  he  hhall  bcc-iuc  bankrupt,  and 
then  j)rovide  that  in  the  event  of  bankruptcy  it  shall  pass  to 
another,  and  not  to  his  creditors.'     A  covenant  t»r  bond  by  a 

•  (V)k  V.  K<>K>-rH.  7  Hin;,'.  4.'J8.  •  Uw  f.  CnWwn,  2  T.  U.  1:5.1 ;   Doe  t.. 

»  I'.illH  V.  Smith.  •■  U.  A  S.  U'Jl.  Ilovnn.  U  M.  it  S.  '.i:>'\ ;   It.mimolt  »•.  H«-(l- 

'  J6.     Hunt  r.  .MortiniLT,    !'•   H.  .t  C  for.l.  :i  V.««.  U'.t.  ft  T.  U.  fiSI ;  Scyiii.mr 

44  V   I,iu-ii!<. '.:".•  L. . I.  Cli.  S41 ;  (irillitli  luul 

'  lMvi*»ii  r.  Kobtniion,   3   .liir.   N.  .S.  llulm.  II. mk.  '111. 

7'.(1.  '  Hi-liil)..tliam  r.  Ililim',  U»  Vc9.  88; 


MISCELLANKOr.S    IKAIDS.  2H7 

juaii  to  i>:iy  inoneys  upon  tlic  contin<^ciicy  of  liis  l):iiikruj)tcy, 
ovc'ii  tli()U;;;h  <:;ivc'ii  in  consideration  of  niarria^a',  is  u  I'raiid 
upon  the  JJaukrupt  laws,  and  cannut  bu  upheld/  except  as  far 
as  tlio  value  of  the  wife's  fortune  may  extend.''  If  tlie  court 
can  lind  a  definite  sum  wliicli  can  be  a))[)ropriat('d  as  the  wife's 
property,  tlie  covenant  will  to  that  extent  be  supported.'  The 
foi-tune  of  a  wife  may  be  settled  on  her  husband  till  he  shall 
become  bankrupt,  or  make  a  composition  with  his  creditors, 
and  then  to  her  separate  use.* 

As8i<^ments  by  a  trader  of  all  his  property  and  effects  in 
trust  for  all  his  creditors  were,  under  the  old  Bankrupt  laws, 
held  void  ; '  but  they  were  protected  to  a  certain  degree,  and 
under  certain  conditions,  by  the  Bankruptcy  Act,  1849,^  and 
are  still  further  protected  by  the  Bankruptcy  Act,  1861.'  By 
the  192d  section  of  the  latter  Act,  trust  deeds  for  the  benefit 
of  creditors,  composition  and  inspectorship  deeds  are  binding 
on  all  the  creditors  of  a  certain  debtor,  if  certain  specified 
conditions  are  complied  with.  The  power,  however,  given  by 
the  clause  enabling  the  majority  of  creditors  to  bind  the  non- 
assenting  minority,  must  be  exercised  hondjide  for  the  benefit 
of  all  the  creditors.  It  is  necessary,  in  order  to  make  a  deed 
of  this  description  binding,  that  it  should  be  free  from  all 
taint  of  fraud.  If  there  is  a  fraudulent  bargain  for  the  benefit 
of  some  creditors,  or  if  the  majority  of  creditors  are  induced 
by  friendly  feelings  towards  tlie  debtor  to  accept  a  composition 
greatly  disproportioned  to  the  assets,  the  court  will  hold  the 
(l(!ed  not  biudiuir  on  the  non-assenting  creditors.     But  if  the 


Iligginson  v.  Kelly,  1  Ba.  &  Be.  255  ;  '  Ilig^inson  v.  Kelly.  1  Ba.  k  Be.  255; 

Jk  Casey's  Trusts,  4  Jr.  Cli.  247  ;  Whit^  Lester  v.  Garland,   5' Sim.  2' '5;  Wbit- 

inore  v.   Mason.    2  J.  tt  II.  212.     See  more  i-.  Mason,  2  J.  «fc  II.  2i>t. 
Holmes  i-.  iV-nney,  3  K.  &,  J.  I<t2.  '  Ih. 

*  Ei-parte  Hill,  1  I'ox,  :jno ;  Ex-parte  *  Lester  v.  Garland,  5  Sim.  222;  Shar^i 

Cooke,  S  Ves.  ;{53  ;   Ex-parte  Murphy,  1  v.  Cosscrntt,  20  IJeav.  470. 
Sch.  &  Lef.  4S ;  lli<;inbothnm  v.  Holme,  »  (Jrittitli  and  Holm,  on  Bank.  120. 

19  Ves.  KS;  Hi:r,'iiisuu  r.  Kelly,  1  Bu.  •  76.  '.•S7. 

i  Be.  25 J.  '  Jb.  I102. 


288  Misci-.i.i.ANi'.ors    ri;\ri»s. 

asi?entini;  majority  !i|»i>rar  t.>  liavr  i«.\iTci.-('<l  tlicir  disorction 
hmd  ji(h  l'<«r  the  Lnictit  ct*  tlu>  crodit.irs,  tliu  court  will  not 
review  the  quantum  of  the  ('(nuposition.'  There  is  fraud  upon 
the  clause,  if  a  man  havin<^  no  lussets  ]>rofc.-.<t's  to  assign  all  his 
property  to  fictitious  creditors.' 

FRAUD  UPON  l{i:STUAININ(;  STATUTES.  KTC. 
In  addition  to  those  alri-ady  eiiuiiieiatcd,  there  are  other 
frauds  upon  statutes  or  acts  of  rarlianient  airaiiist  which  relief 
may  he  had  ine(piity:*  such  as,  fraud  ui-nii  tlie  restraiiiiuir 
statutes;'  fraud  ui»oii  tlie  reiristry  acts:*  fraud  upon  a  private 
act  of  Parliament ; '  and  fraud  (<n  the  revenue  laws. 


e 


FKAII)    IN    AWARDS. 
Courts  of  equity  have  fn-ni  a  very  early  period  had  juris- 
diction to  set  aside  awards  on  the  ground  of  fraud,'  and  still 
entertain    the  jurisdiction,   except    where    it   is   excluded  hy 
statute.*  t 

>  Ezmrte  Cowcn,  L.  R.  2  Cli.  Apr-  *  "fi^nrd  v.  Enrl  of  Slirewsbury.  L. 

pg.j       '  R.  "J  ll..  App.  772. 

^'lU  Clunn    1-2  W.  R.  lOO:?.  "  Kviiiis  v.  Uulianlson,  3  Mor.  409. 

»  Dean  and  Chai.tiT  of  Windsor   r.  '  (Jm-nJiill  v.  riirnch.  W  It.-j).  Ch.  49; 

rcnvin.  M...,r.  7H'.».  Rrown  ..  Hn.wn.  1  Vorn.  i:.f.;   Enrl  ... 

«  Curti;*!'.  IVrry,  0  Vc3.730;  Osborne  Stoikcr.  '1  Vcrn.  '251  ;  IJurton  r.  Knight, 

...  WiHiunifi.  ly  Ve*'.  379;  liuttersby  r.  »^/'H-.  ,        ^,„  .^            ,„    ,,,,-. 

Smvlh  3  Madd.  110.  >"»"«  •••  ^^  l»tmorc,  1  II.  .t  M.  5,... 

""^     •  2  D.  J.  A- S.  Uy?. 


♦  "WbatcviT  i;^  (l'>n(.'  in  frnul  of  a  liiw.  i-s  tlonc  in  violation  of  it.  Lcc  r. 
Lcc,  8  Pet.  44. 

t  The  jurisdiction  of  Chanrcry  ttvcr  jiid^rniints  on  awiirtN  i.s  contincd 
to  thow  ca.<i-«  uhcn-  ii  court  of  i'<|uity  is  aiithoriztd  to  i-xainiiir  into  and 
(Iccn-e  u|M)n  tlu- ju(l;rm<nt  of  a  court  of  common  law,  runtlcrcd  upon  tlio 
verdict  of  a  jury.  There  maybe  certain  otlur  (usi-.s  wlicre,  from  fraud, 
corruption,  or  mislx'havior,  it  may  be  mcesj-ary  to  make  the  arbitrators 
parties  in  equity,  in  onler  to  obtain  a  diKcovery,  und  in  whii  li  an  exten- 
sion «»f  tlie  jurisdiction  of  a  court  of  equity  Ixyond  this  limit  may  Ikj 
allowed.  Waplcs  c.  Woples,  1  llarring.  Wi,  ;  Emerson  r.  Udali,  U  Yt 
472. 


MISCELLANKOUS    FRAUDS.  280 

In  cases  wlicrc  flic  siiliiiiissi(»ii  to  ••irhitratioii  was  by  agree- 
ment between  the  jKirties,  the  only  mode  of  ol>tainin;^  relict' 
formerly  against  an  award  whicli  liad  been  obtained  un<ler 
cireuinstances  of  fraud  and  corrn])tion  on  the  part  of  the 
arbitrator,  was  Iiy  bill  in  e4uity.  r<ut  if  the  agreement 
or  submission  to  arbitration  be  in  writin^r,  and  foiitain  a 
])roviso  that  it  may  be  made  a  rule  of  court,  the  case  is  now 
governed  by  stat.  9  &  10  Will.  Ill,  c.  15,  and  the  jurisdiction 
of  equity  is  excluded.^  A  court  of  equity  lias  no  jurisdiction, 
even  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  if  a  submission  has  been  made  a 
rule  of  a  court  of  common  law  under  the  statute.^ 

If  there  be  a  proviso  in  the  agreement  or  submission  to 
arbitration  enabling  the  parties  to  make  it  a  rule  of  court,  it  is 
immaterial  that  it  may  not  have  been  actually  made  a  rule  of 
court  until  after  the  award  has  been  made,  or  until  after  hill 
tiled."  The  Court  of  Chancery  is  one  of  the  courts  of  record 
invested  with  summary  jurisdiction  under  the  statute."*  If 
there  was  no  proviso  in  the  agreement  or  submission  to  arbi- 
tration enabling  the  parties  to  make  it  a  rule  of  court,  the 
jurisdiction  M-as,  until  a  recent  period,  exclusive  in  e<piity.' 
But  by  the  seventeenth  clause  of  the  Common  Law  Procedure 
Act,  17  &  IS  Yict.  c.  125,  it  is  declared  that  every  agreement 
or  submission  to  arbitration  by  consent,  whether  by  deed  or 
instrument  in  writing,  may  be  made  a  rule  of  a  court  of 
common  law,  unless  a  contrary  intention  appears.  The  mere 
existence,  however,  of  a  power  to  make  an  agreement  or  sub- 
mission to  arbitration  a  rule  of  court,  is  not  tantamount  to  an 
agreement  that  it  shall  be  made  so,  nor  does  it  of  itself,  and 
independently  of  agreement,  exclude  the  ordinary  jurisdiction 


'  Hcminc:  t-.  Swincrton,    2   Ph.  TO ;  '  Nichols    v.    Roc,  3  M.  <fe  K.   439 ; 

Smith  i:  ^\  liitnioro,  1   II.  «t  M.  57G,  2  Ileniinsf  v.  SwiniTton.  2  IMi.  7'J. 
D.  J.  <fe-  i^.  207.  *  lleuiing  i-.  Swinerton,  2  Ph.  70. 

*  Auriol  r.  Smith,  T.  <t  R.  121  ;  Daw-  ' c   Mills.  17  Vc.'».  419;  Good- 

6oa  V.  Sadler,  1  Sim.  &  St.  537.  man  v.  Savers,  2  J.  <k  W.  24'J. 


-!*'^  MISCELLANKOrS    FRAUDS. 

1)1*  the  court.*  If  iIkto  Ito  ik.  ju-oviso  tliat  it  may  be  made  a 
rule  of  c-tdirt,  it  dofs  iiut  l»i'cumc  :i  niK-  of  (•«iiirt  under  the 
Coimnon  Law  rrotvdure  Act,  unless  it  be  actually  made  a  rule 
of  court.' 

JJeforc  the  statute  '.•  cV  lU  AVill.  Ill,  c.  15,  courts  of  law 
were  in  the  practice,  upon  consent  of  i)arties,  of  referrin«r  causes 
to  arbitration,  cither  l»y  rule  of  court,  or  by  order  of  a  jud^'c,  or 
at  nijti  j)riuSf  and  of  nuiking  the  submission  at  the  same  time  a 
rule  of  court.  In  such  cases  courts  (»f  ccpiity  exercised  a  concur- 
rent jurisdiction  over  the  award  made  uj)on  the  reference  with 
courts  of  law,  and  the  statute  of  AVilliam  does  not  appear  to  have 
interfered  with  the  juiixlictioii.^  Xor  has  the  jurisdiction  been 
excluded  by  the  eidar<j;ed  powers  conferred  on  courts  of  com- 
mon law  by  the  Common  Law  Procedure  Act,  17  ife  18  Vict, 
c.  llT).*  It  is,  however,  the  rule  of  the  court  not  to  interfere 
with  an  award  made  under  a  reference  at  law,  unless  there  bo 
something  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case  to  show  or  to  make 
it  appear  that  a  court  of  law  has  not  full  ]H»wcr  and  jurisdic- 
tion to  grant  full  and  adequate  relief.  The  fact  that  a  court  of 
common  law  has  a  i)ower  of  remitting  the  award  for  recon- 
sideration, has  weight  with  the  Court  of  Chancery  when  called 
ujiou  to  interlere.' 

There  is  fraud  in  an  award  if  it  be  obtained  through  cor- 
rujition  or  ])artiality  on  the  ])art  of  the  arbitrat(»r.*  *     In  a  case 


•  Smitli  V.  Whitmorc,  2  D.J.  it S.  308;  *  gj}  8-li^. 

prr  'i'uriitT.  L.  J.  *  l.tindoinlcrry  nnd  Enniskilli'ii  Unil- 

^  III.  wnv   Co.    r.    I^.i'sliiiiaii.    12    11.  av.    fj;}  ; 

*  Lord  Lonsdnl.'  i-.  I/ittl.-.inlc,  2  V«s.  JlaVdiiiL,'  i:  W  ickliam,  2  .1.  .t  II.  (\7(5. 
Jr.  4.'il  ;  Niclioli  r.  Cliali.-.  11  Vi-s,  2r.7  ;  "  l..or.i  Loiisd  iK?  r.  I.iui.diili-,  2  V«'8. 
NirhoUti  r.  U(K',  .'J  .M.  it  K.  i:t;t;  Clmc-k  Jr.  45a ;  Liiiyood  v.   L'rouclior,   2  Atk, 
f.  rniiHT.  2  I'h.  177;  Hunlin^'r.  Wick-  auO. 

ham,  2  J.  d:  II.  07*>. 


*  It  is  mi»l>ohiivi()r  in  nrl)ilrutf»rs  tc  rcpotc  unrliie  confidence  in  tho 
unpruved  Htjiti'mt-ntM  ofone  oltlw  parlicH.     Leo  r.  I'atillo,  4  FioiK'N  480. 
for   MiJ.slK'Imvior    in    tlio   iirl)ilr.iti»n»,  \>y  refusing    to    hear  nmtcrial 


Misci:LLANi:()rs   rRArns.  201 

v.licn^  arliitratoM  lia<l,  citluT  hy  lorcc  or  iViui<l,  cxcliidcil  u 
ci)-:irl)itrator,  or  either  of  the  parties,  from  their  meetings,  it 
was  lield  to  I'uniish  fiucli  a  j)resiim[)tion  of  corruj)tioii  Jis  to  be 
a  sullicicnt  ground  for  setting  aside  tlic  award.^  So,  also,  it  is 
against  good  faitli  ior  a  person  appointed  arhitnitor  to  consider 
liimself  as  agent  of  the  ])(.'rson  a])})(jintiii;r  liiin,'^  or  t<»  hiiy  uj) 
tlie  iinsustained  chiims  of  any  of  tlie  parties  to  the  reference.^ 
So,  also,  there  is  fraud  if  the  award  has  been  obtained  by  Iraud 
or  concealment  of  material  circumstances  on  the  part  of  one 
of  the  jmrties,  so  as  to  ini.-had  tlie  arliitrator.  If  either  party 
be  guilty  of  fraudulent  concealment  of  matters  which  he  ought 
to  have  declared,  or  if  he  wilfully  mislead  or  deceive  the 
arbitrator,  the  award  nuiy  be  set  aside.*  An  award  will  n(>t, 
however,  be  set  aside  on  the  ground  that  the  arbitrator  has 
been  mislead  by  the  evidence  of  a  witness  who  might  have 
been  cross-examined.'^  There  is  also  fraud  to  set  aside  an 
award,  if  the  award  l)e  obtained  by  undue  means;  as,  for 
instance,  if  the  witnesses  have  been  examined  in  the  aljsence 
of  the  parties;^"  or   if   the  award  has  been  made  clandes- 

'  Burton  >:  KiU'^ht,  2  Vcrn.  514.  See  Ab.  Arbitr  (1  n)  30,  2  Eq.  Ca.  Ab.  80; 

IIai<;h  v.  Uu'v^h,  o  1).  K.  ct  J.  15'.t.  Ives  v.  Metcalfe.  1  Atk.  64 ;  Gartside  v. 

"  Calcraft  v.  Roebuck,  1  Ves.  Jr.  220.  Gartside,  8  .\nst.  TMo. 

•  Blennerhasset  v.  Day,  2  Ba.  &  Be.  »  Piltiiore  v.  Hood,  8  Scott,  ISO. 
116.  »  Jie  I'lews  v.  Middleton,  «  Q.  B.  845. 

*  South  Sea  Co.  v.  Bumpstead,  Vin.  See  Ilaigh  v.  Uaigh,  3  D.  F.  «L-  J.  159. 


testimony,  an  avrani  will  be  set  aside.     Van  Cortland  r.  Underhill,  17 
Johns.  405 ;  s.  c.  2  Johns.  Ch.  3:J9. 

An  award  estimatinEr  damaijes  or  the  value  of  property  will  not  be  set 
aside  in  equity,  unless  the  estimate  is  so  enormously  disproportioned  to 
the  ease  proved  as  to  strike  every  one  that  there  must  have  l>een  corruption 
and  partiaUty.  Hand  r.  Kcdinirton,  1:5  N.  II.  72;  Bum  pass  r.  Webb,  4 
Port.  Co  ;  Beverly  v.  RennoMs,  Wythe,  10.5  ;  Van  Cortland  i\  Underhill,  17 
Johns.  405  ;  s.  c.  2  Johns.  Ch.  339. 

*  Pierce  v.  Perkins,  2  Dcv.  Eq.  250;  Emery  r.  Owings,  7  Gill,  488; 
EJiowlton  r.  Xickles,  29  Barb.  4G3. 


•j'.i'j  mis(Ki.i,.\m:<>i  s   nj\rr)a. 

tiuely  without  liearintj  cai-li  party  ; '  *  ».r  if  the  awanl  lias  hccn 
iniule  by  one  iirliitnitor  apart  from  the  otliers;'  or  if  iiitt-rviews 
liave  taken  i)laoo  between  the  arbitrator  and  one  i)arty  in  tho 
absence  of  the  others.'  So,  also,  the  existence  of  any  ^'round 
calculated  ti)  bias  the  mind  of  the  arbitrator,  unknown  to 
either  cf  tho  parties,  is  sufliciciit  tor  tho  interference  of  the 
court ;  *  or  if  one  of  the  parties  has  not  been  allowed  a  proper 
opportunity  of  disoussini;  his  case."  If  interviews  have  taken 
]>lace  between  the  arbitrator  and  one  of  the  parties,  in  tho 
absence  of  the  other,  similar  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the 
pereon  aj>i>lyin-r  will  not  i>rovont  the  court  from  settiuf^  asido 

'  Ives  V.  Modcalfi-,  1  Atk.  01 ;  Hard-  '  Ilnrvcj'  v.  Shelton,  7  Boav.  455. 

in:;  v.  Witklimii.  2  J.  »t  H.   <>7t').     J?ec  *  Konip  v.  Rose,  1  GitF.  'ir>H. 

Sinitlt  f.  Wliitiiiorc.  1  II.  A"  .M.  T'Tn.  '  Spctliquc  i*.  Carpenter,   3  P.  Wnia 

»  JiC  ricws  V.  Miadlctoii,  6  (I  B.  852.  301. 


*  Peters  F.  Newkirk,  0  Cow.  10:] ;  Lutz  r.  Lintliifum,  8  Pet.  178  ;  Jordan 
r.  Hyatt,  3  Bar'.).  G:J4  ;  Rigden  r.  Martiu,  0  II.  ic  J.  40:i;  Walker  r.  City 
Council,  1  Bailey's  Ch.  443. 

Evidence  cannot  be  introduced  without  giving  the  opposite  party  an 
oppi)rtunity  for  cross-examination.     Shinni-;  r.  Coil,  1  McCord's  Ch.  478. 

Merely  recalling  a  witness  who  had  l»een  examined,  for  the  i)urpose  of 
explaining  his  testimony,  in  the  absence  of  ImhIi  parties,  is  not  a  sullicient 
ground.     Ilerrick  r.  Blair,  1  Johns.  Ch.  1(»1. 

The  mere  fact  that  a  party  offered  ami  prevailed  before  the  arliitrators, 
upon  a  groundless  claim,  is  no  ground  for  charging  him  with  fraud.  The 
mere  fart  tiiat  he  considered  it  one  of  doubtful  ecjuity,  or  even  honestly 
iK-lieved  that  it  was  not  well  foumled,  if  all  the  faets  known  to  him  were 
fairly  laid  before  the  arliitrators,  is  no  such  frau.l  as  will  justify  a  court  of 
equity  in  interfering.  He  must,  either  by  the  suggestion  of  fal.sehood,  or 
the  suppression  of  truth,  have  presented  to  the  arbitrators  a  state  of  facta 
in  regard  to  the  merits  of  the  claim  which  were  fictitiou.s,  and  which  he  at 
the  time  believed  to  be  such.  Emerson  r.  Udall,  13  Vt.  477 ;  Buikley  c. 
Starr,  2  Day,  b'»2. 

The  discovery  of  new  evidence,  or  that  the  case  might  be  put  on  a 
different  footing  by  new  evidence,  or  that  a  more  jx-rfect  rule  might  have 
iKcn  adopted,  are  no  groumls  for  an  application  to  Chancery  to  have  an 
uwurd  set  a.«ide.     Allen  r.  Hanney,  1  Ct.  flO'J. 

New  evidence  may  be  so  dccihive,  ami  have  been  so  suppressed  by  tho 
adverse  party,  thit  an  awar.l  ought  to  be  relieved  ag.iinst  in  etiuity. 
Lankton  c.  Bcott,  Kirby,  [iW. 


MISCELLANEOUB    FRAUDS.  2!).'J 

the  awunl,  t'nr  the  iiuittur  coiiconis  tliu  «luc  inliiunistratioii  of 

justice.* 

E(|uity  will  not  p;ivc  relief  an;ainst  an  awanl,  if  the  eondiiet 
of  the  party  making  the  application  has  been  such  us  to 
destroy  his  right  to  resort  to  the  court  lor  relief.^  An  agree- 
ment for  reference,  accordingly,  cannot  be  set  aside  as  obtained 
by  undue  pressure,  if  the  party  objecting  has  attended  tlu; 
reference,  and  taken  the  chance  of  an  award  in  his  tavor.'  Xor 
can  relief  be  had  against  an  award  when  there  has  been  any 
laches  on  the  part  of  the  person  making  the  applicaticm/ 
Similar  misconduct,  however,  to  that  complained  of  on  the 
part  of  the  person  making  the  application,  will  not  prevent  the 
court  from  setting  aside  an  award,  if  the  award  has  been 
obtained  by  undue  means.' 

FRAUD  m  JUDGMENTS. 
A  judgment  or  decree  obtained  by  fraud  upon  a  court, 
binds  not  such  court  or  any  other,  and  its  nullity  upon  tliis 
ground,  though  it  has  not  been  set  aside  or  reversed,  may  be 
alleged  in  a  collateral  proceeding.®*  "  Fraud,"  said  De  Grey, 
C.  J.,  ''  is  an  extrinsic,  collateral  act,  which  vitiates  the  most 

'  Ilnrvcy  v.  Sli(>lton,  7  Bcav.  455.  G74 ;  Kichols  v.  Hancock,  7  D.  M.  it  (i. 

»  Sinitli  V.  Whitmore,  1  11.  it  M.  576,  30i). 
2  D.  J.  it  8.  297.  '  Ilarvey  v.  Shelton,  7  Bcav.  455. 

'  Oniics  V.  Bcadd,  2  Giff.  166,  2  D.  F.  '  Philii)i'ison  v.  Lord  Eirremont,  6  Q. 

<fe  J.  333;  i-x-partc  Wyld,  2  D.  F.  &  J.  B.  582;  Lord  Baiidon  v.  Beelier,  3  CI. 

642.  it  Fin.  510 ;  bluildon  v. Patrick,  1  Ma((|. 

*"jonc3  V.  Bennett.  1  Bro.  P.  C.  528.  53.") ;  Kci?.  v.  Saddlers'  Co.,  10  II.  L. 

See  Ead3  v.  Williams,  4    1>.  M.  it  G.  431,  },cr  Willes,   J.     See  Tommey   v. 

White,  4  11.  L.  313. 


*  "Webster  v.  Reitl,  11  IIow.  437  ;  Caqienter  v.  ITart,  5  Cal.  400. 

Jiulixmcnts,  whether  confessed  or  rendered  upon  a  verdict,  may  l>c 
attacked  collaterally  as  fraudulent  against  creditors.  Clark  c.  Douglass, 
63  Penn.  408. 

A  judgment  may  be  attacked  collaterally  for  some  matter  arising  sul>- 
Bcquently  to  the  entry  of  it.  as  payment  or  a  relea-^e,  which  would  show 
that  it  was  kept  ou  foot  fraudulently.  Campbell  r.  Sloan,  63  Penn. 
481. 


204  MISCELLANEOUS    lUAl  I)S. 

solemn  prooccdiiif:^  of  courts  of  justici'.  Lord  (\)ke  says  it 
avoids  all  judicial  acts,  ecclesiastical  and  tt  iniMnal."  '  *  In 
a])j)lvi!ii;  this  rule,  it  matters  imt  wlittlur  tlu-  jiidiifiueut  ini- 
j»ui:ned  has  been  pronounced  by  an  interior  or  by  the  highest 
court  of  judicature  in  the  realm,  but  in  all  cases  alike  it  is 
competent  for  every  court,  whether  superior  or  inferior,  to 
treat  as  a  nullity  any  judgment  which  can  ]»e  clearly  shown  to 
have  been  obtained  by  manifest  fraud.^  AVhether  an  innocent 
party  would  be  allowed  to  prove  in  one  court  that  a  judgment 
against  him  in  another  court  M'as  obtained  by  fraud,  is  a  cpies- 
tion  not  eipially  clear,  as  it  would  be  in  his  ]>ower  to  apply 
directly  to  the  court  which  ]»ron(»unced  it  to  vacate  it.'  But, 
however  this  point  may  be  ultimately  determined,  thus  much 
is  evident,  that  a  guilty  i»arty  would  not  be  jiermitted  to  defeat 
a  judgment  by  showing  that,  in  obtaining  it,  he  had  j)racticed 
an  impositition  on  the  court,  for  it  would  be  an  outrage  on 
justice  and  common  sense  if  a  person  could  thus  avoid  the 
consequeuces  of  his  own  fraudulent  conduct.* 

FRAUD  UPON  THE  CROWX. 
A  conveyance  executed  in  fraud  of  jtroceedings  under  an 
outlawry,  is  a  fraud  upon  the  Crown,  and  will  be  set  aside." 

•  Rex  «•.  I)uclicf»9  of  Kingston,  20  '  rriullmm  v.  I'liilipiis,  2  Anibl.  7fi3; 
How.  St  Tr.  r.44,  2  Sinitli's  L.  C.  t'.HT.  2i»  H.iw.  St.  Tr.  il'J,  Jsl  ;  Kox  c.  Duch- 
St-e  Urownsword  v.  Kdwnnl.s,  2  Vcj^.  e.s.')  of  Kinirstoii.  2ti  How.  St.  Tr.  C-H. 
246;  Mfildowcrofl  v.  lluiriicnin,  4  Moo.  *  I'rudtuim  i'.  I'liilipii.i,  2  Anib.  763, 
1*.  C.  :iK«;  IVrry  v.  Mc<l«lrnviroft,  H)  20  How.  St.  Tr.  47'.i;  Doo  t-.  IlobortH,  2 
Ik-av.  122;   lIurriMJii   i'.   Mayor  ic.  of  li.  tfc  AM.  ;{67  ;  lioasey  v.  Wiiuiliam,  6 

Soiitlifimi»toi).  4  I).  .M.  it  <;.  "na.  q.  b.  itw;. 

*  SheddfU  i-.  rtilrkk,  1  Miictj.  5;i5.  »  Att.-tJcn.  v.  Richards,  1  I'll.  383. 


*  Gill  r.  Carter,  0  J.  J.  Mnrsh.  481 ;  Ilall  r.  Hall,  1  Gill,  aoi ;  Wilson  r. 
Watt.'*,  y  M(l.  '.ir>i\. 

"With  any  fraiKbilcnt  conduct  of  parties  in  oblaininj;  u  juilL'inont,  or  in 
attempting  to  avail  thcnisilvcs  of  it,  a  court  of  c<|uity  can  rcLjuIarly  tako 
cojfni/Jincf.  The  tnio  and  intrin.sic  character  of  proci-ctlln^'s,  a»  well  in 
courts  of  law  a**  in  jhiIm,  is  alike  hulijcct  to  tlic  wniliny  of  u  court  of 
C(|uity,  which  will  probe,  uud  cither  sustain  or  annul  them,  according  to 


MlSCELLANEOrS    FKAIUS.  295 

FRAUD  UPON  COURTS  OF  COMPETENT  JURISDICTION. 

A  court  of  equity  will  give  assistance  to  enforce  the  jti<lg- 
mcnts,  decrees,  or  sentences  of  other  courts  of  conij>etent 
and  lawful  civil  jurisdiction,  when  the  execution  of  such  judg- 
ments, decrees,  and  sentences  is  defeated  or  obstructed  by 
fraudulent  contrivances.^ 

A  voluntary  settlement,  accordingly,  of  real  and  personal 
estate,  made  by  a  man  who  was  defendant  in  a  suit  in  the 
Ecclesiastical  Court,  with  the  intent  of  withdrawing  his  ])roi>- 
crty  from  the  process  of  that  court,  was  set  aside.^  Although 
the  deed  may  have  been  executed  before  any  right  was  de- 
clared, or  any  order  for  payment  of  money  was  made,  yet  if  it 
appear  tliat  the  deed  was  executed  for  the  purpose  of  defeating 
the  right  which  the  defendant  knew  the  plaintiff  was  entitled 
to  establish,  it  will  be  considered  to  have  been  executed  with 
the  view  and  intention  of  defrauding  him.^ 

FRAUD  UPON  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

In  Yauxhall  Bridge  Co.  v.  Earl  Spencer,^*  it  was  held 
that  an  agreement  between  a  land-owner  and  a  company,  that, 
in  the  event  of  his  not  opposing  an  application  to  Parliament, 
the  land-owner  should  receive  a  sum  of  money,  is  a  fraud 
upon  the  legislature  if  concealed  from  Parliament,  and  is, 
therefore,  void  upon  grounds  of  public  policy.     But  the  priu- 

'  Blenkinsopp    v.    Blenkinsopp,     12  M  D.  M.  «fe  G.  500. 

Beav.  58t^.  *  2  iladd.  306 ;  S.  C.  Jac.  C4. 

»  lb.     1  D.  M.  <fe  G.  500. 


their  real  character,  and  as  the  ends  of  justice  may  reqnirc.  Bvcrs  p. 
Surget,  19  How.  303  ;  s.  c.  1  Hemp.  715  ;  Williams  v.  Fowler,  2  J.  J.  Marsh. 
405 ;  Griffin  r.  Skcto,  30  Geo.  300. 

*  Misrepresentation  and  concealment  employed  in  obtaining  an  act  of 
the  legislature,  are  ground  fur  a  court  of  equity  to  give  relief  by  depriving 
a  party  of  such  unjust  advantage  obtained  thereliy.  State  v.  Reed,  4  II.  ic 
McH.  6;  Williamson  v.  Williamson,  3  Smed.  ic  Mar.  715. 


200  LOSS  ov  iiiciTT  TO  mrKAni 

ciplo  ujion  wliicli  tliat  casi"  was  foiuuU'tl  is  t'l.iMi  to  much  ques- 
tion. Tlu'  hrttrr  njtjni.m  wouM  sicin  t(t  be,  tliat  there  is  no 
Iraud  ujK)!!  the  h',iri>lature  unless  the  a<,'ivenuMit  is  one  which 
the  j)arties  are  bound  to  connnunicate.  There  may  be  cases 
in  which  an  agreement  of  the  sort  shouhl  be  ((immunicated  to 
the  le'Mslature,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  ordinary 
cases  it  is  open  to  parties  to  enter  into  such  an  aj^reement,  and 
that  there  is  no  obliiration  incumbent  on  them  to  connnunicate 
it  t(»  the  le^i^ishiture.'  Tlie  quest  ion  whetlier  sudi  an  a-j^rce- 
ment  is  binding  on  the  conquiuy  uller  incorporation,  is  a  very 
diHerent  one. 


SECTION  Vh-TlOW  THE  VAGUT  TO  IMPEACTT  A  TRANS- 
ACTION ON  TIIK  (iliUlN])  OF  FKAri)  MAY  BE 
LOST. 

Tkansactions,  althouf^h  impeachable  in  e<piity  at  the  time 
of  inception,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  on  the  ground  of 
fraud,  may  become  unimpeachable  l)y  a  subsequent  confirma- 
tion, by  acquiescence,  or  by  the  niere  lapse  of  time. 

CONFIRMATION. 

In  order  that  an  act  may  have  any  effect  or  validity  as  a 
continuation,  it  must  clearly  a])pear  that  the  party  coutirming 
was  fullv  apprised  of  liis  right  to  imjteach  the  transaction,  and 
acted  freely,  deliberately,  and  advisedly,  with  the  intention  of 
coniirming  a  transaction  which  he  knew,  or  might,  or  ought, 
with    rea.«onable  or  proper  diligence,  to  have   known    to    be 

»  Simimon  v.  l-oni  Ilowdfn,  10  A.  A  ini;  i»  loonl  net  of  rftrliiiinotit.  Mnnuh-o 

E.  IW,  '•  <'l.  A  ^''"•  •'•'  ;  Tiiylor.  r.  Clii  r.  (irnnJ  Dock  Colliury  Co.,  lu  tiim. 

chffitfr.    Ac,    Kuihviiy    <".,   K.    K.    '^  •'•l'-'. 
tjtcli.  366.     8of  an  to  fraud  hi  obtnin- 


ON  Tin:  (iuuuNi)  of  ficald.  'JI)7 

imponcliiililc*  It"  liis  ri;^lit  to  iiiipeucli  the  tranKaction  \n: 
coueealcd  tVum  him,  or  a  tree  disclosure  he  not  made  to  him  of 
every  circumstance  whicli  it  is  material  for  him  to  know,  or  if 
the  act  takes  phice  iiiidcr  pressure  or  constraint,  or  l>y  thi: 
exercise  of  undue  inlhicnct',  or  un(U'r  the  delusive  o])inion  tliat 
tlie  orii,dnal  transaction  is  iiindini;  on  lum,  oi-  if  it  \u;  merely  a 
continuation  of  the  original  transaction,  the  coniirmation 
operates  as  nothing.'f     Confirmation  may  be  by  will  as  well  as 

'  Cann    i-.   t'ann,    1     I'.    Wins.    727;  42.1;    Wi'iltlerburn    »i.   Wi'(l<krljurti,    2 

Cole  »'.  (Jibbons,  ;i  1'.  Wnis.  2'.Mi;  Crowe  Keen.  722;   De  Montmorencv  v.  Deve- 

I'.  IJnllanl.  :{  Bro.  C.  C.  1111,  2Cox,  2r):i;  rciix,   7  Cl.   ife  Fin.    188;    Muliialk'n  v. 

Chesteifiolil    r.   Jaiusen,    2    Vcs.    125;  Maniin,  3  Dr.  <feWnr.  .'517;  Salmon  «. 

Walker  >:  Symomls,  8  Sw.  1 ;  Murray  Cutts,  4  Deir.  &  S.  132;  Stump  v.  fJaby, 

V.  Palmer,  2'^ScIi.  A  Lef.  48C. ;  Morse  v.  2  1).  M.  .t  G.  023;  Koberts  v.  TunsUill. 

Uoyal,  12  Ve.s.  3r>r> ;  J'urceil  v.  Macna-  4  Ha.  2.")7;  Cockell  v.  Taylor,  15  Beav. 

niara,    14   Ves.   'Jl ;    (Jowland    v.    De  125;   Waters  v.  Tliorn,  22  Beav.  547; 

Faria.  17  Ves.  20;  Wood  )■.  iJiMwnes.  18  Savery   v.  Kin^',    5  11.   L.  1127;    Atlie- 

Vcs.   128;   Sav  ''.  Barwiek,  1  V.  ifc  B.  na'Uin  Life  Society  v.  I'ooley,  3  D.  <k  J. 

195;  Kncbe  r." O'Brien,  1  B.  &  B.  338,  TJ'J;   Smith  v.  Kay,  7  IL  L.  750;  Wall 

340;  Dunbar  r.  Trcddennick,  2  B.  tt  B.  v.    Cockcrell,    10  il.  L.  229;   Potts  v. 

317;  Moiony  r.  I/Estrani^e,  Beat.  40f. ;  Surr,  34  Beav.  543. 
Cockcrell  v.  Cliolmondeley,  1  II.  ifc  M. 


♦  Confirmation  and  ratification  imply  knowledge  of  a  defect  in  the  act 
to  be  confirmed  and  of  the  rii,dit  to  reject  or  ratify  it.  Ciimbcrhmd  Coal 
Co.  V.  Sherman,  20  Md.  117. 

The  party  nnist  l)c  aware  that  the  act  he  is  doing  will  have  the  effect 
to  confirm  the  transaction.     CheiTy  v.  Newsora,  3  Yerg.  369. 

Ratification  is  the  adoption  of  a  previously  formed  contract,  notwith- 
standing a  vice  that  rendered  it  relatively  void ;  and  by  the  verj-  nature  of 
the  act  of  ratification,  confinnation,  or  affirmance,  the  party  confirming 
becomes  a  party  to  the  contract;  he  that  was  not  bound  becomes  bound 
by  it,  and  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of  it.  He  accepts  the  consideration 
of  the  contract  as  a  Bufficient  consideration  for  adopting  it,  and  usually 
this  is  quite  enough  to  support  the  ratification.  PearsoU  r.  Chapin,  44 
Penn.  9. 

t  IIolTman  Steam  Coal  Co.  r.  Cumb 'rland  Coal  Co.  16  Md.  450 ;  Cum- 
berland Coal  Co.  V.  Sherman,  20  Md.  117 ;  Williams  r.  Reed,  3  Mason,  40.">; 
Butler  r.  Haskell,  4  Dessau.  Col;  Cumberland  Coal  Co.  r.  Sherman,  30 
Barb.  533 ;  McConniok  r.  Malin,  5  Blackf  509 ;  Brodduc  v.  Call,  3  Call, 
546;  Boyd  r.  Hawkins,  2  Dev.  £q.  195;  Kainsfbrd  r.  Rainsford.  Spears' 
Ch.  385. 

Confirmation  must  be  a  solemn  and  deliberate  act.  When  the  original 
transaction  is  infected  with  fraud,  the  confinnation  of  it  is  so  inronastent. 
20 


20S 


LOSS  OF  KiciiT   ro  imim;a('ii 


by  deed.'  It'  mi  iiidrpnidi'iit  \"i:.\\  ndvisi-r  I'C  eiiiiiloyed,  it 
will  l.r  assi.med  that  lu"  li:i«l  ^ati^lied  liiiiisell'  belore  ai>i)roving 
(•f  tlie  transact iiiii,  that  it  was  fur  the  iK-uetit  uf  his  client  to 
conlirni  it.' 

RELEASE. 

The  same  requisites  which  are  necessary  to  render  a  con- 
firniution  valid,  are  neees.-ary  to  rmder  a  release  valid.^* 

ACQUIESCENCE. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  t(»  reiuler  a  ti-ansaction  nnini- 
l)eachable,  that  any  po.sitive  act  ot*  conlirniatii>n  or  release 
should  take  i)lace.  It  is  enoUirh,  if  ju-oof  can  be  «;ivcn  of  a 
iixed  and  unbiassed  determination  not  to  impeach  the  transac- 
tion.    This  may  be  proved,  either  by  acts  evideuciu<^  acqui- 


'  stump  V.  Cahv,  2  D.  M.  A  G.  623. 
Sec  Waters  f.  Tlium,  22  lieav.  .117. 

'  Stnnes  v.  I'nrker,  9  IJcnv.  388;  Do 
Montmorency  v.  Devereu.x,  7  CI.  «t 
Finn.  188;  Asplaml  v.  Watte,  20  lieav. 
474.    • 

>  Lloyd  V.  Attwooil,  3  I).  <t  J.  CI  t ; 
Spackiiian's  Ca.se,  34  L.  J.  C'li.  32'.t; 
Farranl  v.  IJlanclifonl,  1  I>.  J.  tt  S. 
119;  Avfline  v.  Mellniisli,  2  I).  J.  «t  S. 
289.  See  SalkeUl  v.  Vernon,  1  Kilen, 
04;  Uroderick  v.  Hroderick,  1  1*.  \V. 
239;  Cocking  v.  Pratt,  1  Ves.  400; 
Heron  v.  Heron.  2  Atk.  IGO;  I'usoy  »'. 
Di-sbouvcric,   8  1'.  Wuis.   816;   Bteatl- 


man  v.  Pall'mir.  3  Atk.  423;  Bowles  v. 
Stuart,  1  Sell,  it  Lof.  2o'.i ;  O'NeilU. 
Hiimill.  Heat.  018;  William.^  v.  Smitli, 
7  L.  .1.  C'li.  129;  Wuil.lerhuin  v.  Weil- 
(l.iliiirn,  2  Keen,  72S,  4  M.  «tl'.  41; 
Millar  i'.  Craiu',  *>  Ueav.  433;  Stanes  p. 
I'arkfr,  9  Ueav.  385;  Todd  v.  Wilson, 
ill.  480;  Lindo  v.  Lindo,  1  lUav.  490; 
Duke  of  Leeds,  v.  Andier.st.  2  I'll.  117; 
'riiornlier  f.  Slicard,  12  Ileav.  589; 
i'arker  r.  liloxam,  2U  IJcav.  29,'> ;  Afl)*- 
lun<l  r.  Watte,  ib.  4.st»;  Eyro  r.  hur- 
mrster,  K*  II.  L.  IDO;  Skilbeck  v.  Hil- 
ton, 2  L.  U.  K(i.  n^7. 


with  jiistico,  nnd  po  likely  to  be  ftrcompnnied  with  imposition,  that  tlie 
courts  wat(  h  it  with  the  utmost  Ptriclncss,  and  do  not  allow  it  to  stand 
but  «in  the  clearest  evidence,  Cumberland  Coal  Co.  r.  Shtrmuii,  20 
Md.  117. 

The  Icj^al  title  is  supreme  until  attacked.  If  the  injured  ]»arty  ratifies 
the  ori'nnal  transaction,  the  abandonment  of  his  equitable  claims  removes 
ull  doubt  from  tlje  lej?al  title,  and  it  is  as  if  nuspicion  or  cmbarnissment 
liad  nev<*r  attached  to  if.     Comstock  r.  Ames,  3  Keyes,  'V>7. 

•  .MicJioud  r.  CJinxl,  4  How.  503;  IJradlcy  r.  Chase,  22  Me.  511 ;  Tarson 
e.  IIuKheH,0  Paige,  591. 


ON    THE   (iUni  ND   Ol"   rilALlJ.  'J!M> 

cecenoo,    or   l)y    flic    incrc    l.q.sc    of   time    diiriiii:    wliicli    tin- 
tmnsaetiuii  lias  hceii  allowc'tl  to  stand.' 

Acqnicsceiico  or  delay  for  a  leiiL-'tli  of  time  after  a  man  i.s  in 
a  situation  to  enforce  a  ritjlit,  aii<l  with  a  full  knowledge  of 
facts,  is,  in  equity,  cogent  evidence  of  a  waiver  aixl  al)aiidoii- 
ment  of  the  right.'  *  If  a  voidalde  contract,  or  other  transac- 
tion, is  voluntarily  acted  on,  with  a  knowledge  of  all  the  facts, 
in  tlie  hope  that  it  may  turn  out  to  tlie  advantage  of  a  party 
wlio  miglit  liave  avoided  it,  he  may  not  avoid  it  when,  after 
abiding  that  event,  it  has  turned  out  to  Jiis  disadvantage.^f 

'  Vandcrplnnk  v.  Kinj,  S  D.  JI.  &  G.  land  v.  Sidilall,  3  D.  F.  i  J.  73;   Skot- 

133.  towe  V.  Williiirns,  ib.  hZr,. 

'  Duke  of  Loed.s  v.  Lord  Anilicrst,  2  '  Orrnos  v.  Bc-adel,  2  D.  F.  <t  J.  33(5, 

Ph.  117,  123;  Life  Association  of  Scot>  jicr  Lord  Ciimiibcll. 


*  Crozier  v.  Acer,  7  Paige,  137;  Davis  v.  James,  4  J.  J.  Marsh.  81 ;  Pol- 
lard r.  Rogers,  4  Call,  239;  Moffatt  r,  Winslow,  7  Paige,  124;  Saddler  r. 
llobinson,  2  Stew.  520 ;  Ayres  r.  Mitchell,  3  Smcd.  &  JIar.  383 ;  5Ioore  r. 
Reed,  2  Irod.  Eq.  oSO;  McXauglitou  r.  Partridge,  11  Ohio,  223;  Knuckolls 
V.  Lea,  10  lluuiiih.  577;  Dougherty  r.  Dougherty,  3  Ilalst.  Ch.  027. 

t  Bruce  v.  Davenport,  3  Keyes,  472 ;  Collier  v.  Thompson,  4  Mon.  81 ; 
Finley  r.  Lynch,  2  Bibb,  5GG  ;  De  Armand  t'.  Philips,  Walker's  Ch.  18G; 
Blydenburch  r.  "Welsh,  1  Bald.  331 ;  Edwards  v.  Roberts,  7  Smed.  &  Mar! 
544 ;  Railroad  Co.  r.  Rowe,  24  Wend.  74. 

A  vendor  liy  bringing  suit  and  recovering  judgment  for  the  purchase 
money,  ratilies  and  conliims  the  sale.  Xelson  r.  Carrington,4  Munf.  332; 
Sanger  v.  Wood,  3  Johns.  Ch.  410;  Pettus  v.  Smith,  4  Rich.  Eq.  107. 

The  matter  of  -waiver  is  not  a  conclusion  of  law  from  any  particular 
incident,  but  a  conclusion  of  fact  deducible  from  all  the  acts  of  a  party  as 
evidence  of  his  intention.     Crawley  r.  Timberlake,  2  Ircd.  Eq.  400. 

A  party  is  bound  to  be  prompt  in  communicating  the  fraud  when  dis- 
covered, and  consistent  in  his  notice  to  the  opposite  party  of  the  use  he 
intends  to  make  of  it.  Carroll  r.  Rice,  Walker's  Ch.  373;  Disbrow  r. 
Jones,  Ilarriug.  Ch.  102;  Street  r.  Dow,  Ilarring.  Ch.  427;  Winn-atc  r. 
King,  10  Shep.  95 ;  Cain  v.  Guthrie,  8  Blackf.  409 ;  Alexander  r.  Ultez,  7 
Ired.  Eq.  242 ;  Fratt  v.  Fiske,  17  Call.  380. 

A  party  seeking  the  rescission  of  a  contract  for  fraud,  must  act  with 
vigilance  and  promptness,  and  return,  or  olTor  to  return,  the  property  to 
the  vendor  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  discovery  of  the  fraud."  If 
the  vendee  keeps  it  and  treats  it  as  his  own  by  putting  it  up  for  s:ile,.or 
exercising  other  acts  of  ownership  over  it,  he  cannot  afterwards  rescind 


.•^OO  LOSS  ov  incnT  to  imitacii 

To  iix  a('quic?riMi«-t'  u|h.ii  a  i.:iity  it  iini.-t  unotjuivocnlly 
apjH'ar  that  lu-  knew  nr  liad  notice  of  the  tm-t  m'.-ii  which  tlu- 
allowed  acquiet^ceiico  h  foun(le<l,  and  t<»  which  it  ivl'ers.*  Ac- 
quiesconce  imports  and  is  founded  on  knowli'd-re.  A  recogni- 
tion resiiltini;  from  iuMiorance  of  a  material  fact  j^oes  for 
nothinir.  The  question  ns  to  acquiescence  cannot  arise  unless 
the  ]>arty  au'ainst  wliom  it  is  set  up  was  awan-  of  his  ri_i,'hts,  A 
man  cannot  be  said  to  acquiesce  in  wliat  he  does  not  know, 
nor  can  he  be  l)Ound  by  acquiescence  unless  he  is  fully  ap- 
prised as  to  his  rii;hts  and  all  the  material  facts  and  circum- 
stances of  the  case.'* 

'  Rnndall  v.  Errinirton.  10  Vcb.  42S;  Ilonnor  v.  Morton,  a  Riiss.  65;  Cockcr- 

Spnckinnn's   (^nse,    'M   L.   J.    (  h.  S'Jl.  ell  r.  Cliolmi'loy.  Tnnil.  4:i5 ;    Austin  r. 

rj'iO;    Stanlioju's   Cnsf.    L.    U.    1    Cli.  ('l.aml)i'rs,  f.   i  1.  A-  Fin.  1;   Charter  r. 

App.  1'>1;  btvwarl'd  Case,  L.  U.  1  Ch.  Tnvi-lyan,  11  Cl.  »t   Fin    714;   Cockell 

Ajiji.  M4.  r.  Taylor,   l.'i  B>'av.    l'J'2;   Hurrows  »•. 

»  Ilandall  r.  Errin^jton.  10  Yes.  42ft;  Walls,  r.  I).  M.  .V.  2:$;{;    Lloyd  v.  Att- 

BlcnncThassott  v.  Day.  2  B.  A  li.  104  ;  wood.  :J  I).  «fc  J.  i'.14  ;    Savery  v.  Kin<;, 

Cholmondelcy  v.  Cliiiton,  2   Mcr.  o(51;  6  II.  L.  62T  ;   I'.riglit  r.  Lcgcrton,  2  D. 


the  contract.  Dill  r.  Camp,  22  Ala.  240 ;  Taymon  r.  Mitchell.  1  Md.  Ch. 
49G;  Clement  v.  Smith,  'J  Gill,  l')t>;  McCulloch  r.  Scott,  l;{  B.  Mon.  172. 

An  oflTer  to  return,  matle  through  the  medium  of  the  post-office,  ii 
equivalent  to  a  personal  olTer,  and  secures  to  the  vendee  every  benefit  re- 
sultinir  from  it.     IJamett  i.  Stanton,  2  Ala.  181. 

When  the  vendee,  upon  olTmiig  to  return  the  i)roperty,  is  infonncd 
that  it  will  not  Iw  received,  he  neetl  not  jicrform  the  vain  and  idle  task  of 
makinff  a  personal  tender.     Tibbs  r.  Timberlake,  4  Litt   12. 

.V  purchaser,  after  an  offer  to  return,  must  deliver  the  goods  to  the 
vendor  upon  a  reasonable  demand,  and  a  refusal  to  surrender,  destroys  the 
ftfect  of  the  pnvious  tender.     Bennett  r.  Fail,  20  Ala.  GOo. 

A  imrty  is  only  boun<l  to  the  extent  of  his  ncquicscenec ;  Ix-yond  that, 
he  is  entitled  to  relief.     P<dlard  r.  Rogers,  4  Cull,  2:5'.i. 

'  Flagg  r.  Mann,  2  Sumner.  4S0  ;  Shackelford  r.  Hundley,  1  A.  K. 
Marsh.  41)5;  Shijip  v.  Swan,  2   Bibb,  82;  (iarvin  r.   Lewez,  7  Smed.  A: 

Mar.  24. 

.V  l>arty  must  us«-  reasonable  diligence  to  ascertain  the  facts.  Buford 
r.  Brown,  «  B.  Mon.  r,:t'.l 

A  party  can  not  justly  b«-  regarded  as  continuing  a  coiitrart  l>elieved 
to  \k  fraudulent  l»e<-atjs<'  he  di<l  not  rrpudiate  it  at  an  earlier  period  upon 
•  mere  violent  presumption  of  fraud  instead  of  waiting  until  ho  can  clearly 
latablish  it.     Ir^intr  r.  Tliom:i«,  fi  Ship.  418. 


ox   Tlir:  (JUOLNI)   OF   I'KALD.  301 

Nor,  indeed,  is  a  recognition  of  avail  wliidi  assumcfl  the 
validity  <'t'  a  transaction,  it"  the  question  as  to  its  validity  does 
not  aj)|)t'ar  to  have  (•^)uni  before  the  ])arlies.'  The  mere  fact 
that  a  ijiaii  may  lia\e  hcai'd  iiiit'avoralilf  nimoi's,  and  con- 
ceived suspicions,  is  not  enough  to  lix  him  with  acquiescence.' 
The  proof  of  knowledge  lies  on  the  party  who  alleges  acquies- 
cence, and  sets  it  up  as  a  defence.'  If  the  transaction  has 
taken  phice  under  ])ressurc,  or  the  exercise  of  undue  influence, 
it  must  clearly  and  unequivocally  appear  that  the  party 
against  whom  acquiescence  is  alleged  was  sui  juris.,  and  was 
released  from  the  influence  or  the  pressure  under  wliicli  he 
stood  at  the  time  of  the  transaction,  and  acted  freely  and  ad- 
visedly in  abstaining  from  impeaching  it.  Acquiescence  goes 
for  nothing  so  long  as  a  man  continues  in  the  same  situation 
in  which  he  was  at  the  date  of  the  transaction.*  But  as  soon 
as  a  man  with  full  knowledge,  or  at  least  with  sufKcient  notice 
or  means  of  knowledge,  of  his  rights,  and  of  all  the  material 
circumstances  of  the  case,  freely  and  advisedly  does  anything 
which  amounts  to  the  recognition  of  a  ti-ansaction,  or  acts  in  a 
manner  inconsistent  with  its  repudiation,  or  lies  l)y  for  a 
considerable  time,  and  knowingly  and  deliberately  permits 
another  to  deal  with  the  property,  or  incur  expense,  under  the 
belief  that  the  transaction  has  been  recognized,  or  freely  and 

F.  it  J.  617  :  Life  Association  of  Scot-  3  D.  F.  A  J.  58;  Wall  v.  Cockerell,  10 
land  I'.  Siiiilall,  \i  1).  F.  it  J.  74;  Bui-  II.  L.  229;  Spademan's  Ca^e,  34  L.  J. 
lock  V.   Downcs,  9  H.  L.    1  ;   Wall  v.       Cli.  329. 

Cockerull,  10    II.    L.    229;    Bcrdoe    v.  *  Gowland  v.  De  Faria,  17  Ves   25; 

Dawson,    34    I>oav.   003;    Vyvyan    v.  Groirory  v.  Gregory,  Coop.  201 ;  Roche 

Vyvj-nn,    30    Beav.    65;    Spackman's  t-.  O'Brien,  1  B.  ifc  B.  3oS ;  Ayhvard  v. 

Case,  34  L.  J.  Ch.  329 ;  Stewart's  Case,  Kearney,  2  B.   <t  B.  463  ;    I'aliner  v. 

L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  514  ;  xiipm,  p.  l:i2.  AVlieeler,  ib.  31  ;   Ilonncr  v.  Morton.  3 

'  Ilonner    i'.    Morton.    3    Kuss.    65;  Russ.  65 ;   Duke  of  Leeds  r.  Lord  Am- 

Wrigljtv.  Vanderplank,  8  D.  M.  <t  G.  herst,  2  I'll.  117;   Addis  r.  Campbell.  4 

133.     See  Baker  v.  Bradley,  7  D.  M.  <fe  Beav.  401  ;  Roberts  v.  Tunstall,  4  Ha. 

G.  597.  257 ;   Salmon   v.  Cutts,  4  Dei,'.  &  Sm. 
*  Central  Railwaj' Co.  of  Venezuela  r.  132;  Wright  v.  Vanderplank,  8  D.  >L 

Kisch.  L.  R.  2  App.  Ca.  112.  <fe  G.   133;   Evre  i-.  M'I>..nnell,  15  Ir. 

'  Bennett  v.  Cllev,  2  M.  &  K.  225;  Ch.  534;   Bcrdoe  v.  Dawson,  34  Beav. 

Bnrrows  v.  Walls,  5'  D.  M.  it  (i.  233;  6n3. 
Life  Association  of  Scotland  c.  Siddall, 


;;()•_•  LOSS    (U      KU.lir   'lO    IMl'l.ACIl 

advisedly  ab^^tnins  lor  a  c.iiisiili'raMr  lujisr  <il"  tiiiio  from  iiii- 
poadiini;  it,  lluTi'  is  !U'i|uiescenct',  and  tlio  transaction,  altlion<;li 
ori«;inally  iinju'arlialiU',  ln'Cdnics  uniinpcaclialtU-  in  Lvjuity.*  If, 
for  instance,  a  man  attcr  discovcrin;^  tliat  the  rei>rescntations 
in  a  prospectus,  on  the  faith  of  whicli  he  has  }»urchased  shares 
are  false,  deals  with  the  shares  as  (twner,  hy  instructin<;  a 
hrokcr  to  srll  tlHiii,'^  or  c<iiuui.>  in  the  appcintiMent  of  a 
committee  ut  iiive.-tii^atioii  inti>  tlie  atlairs  of  the  company 
on  behalf  of  the  shareiiulders,^  there  is  ac(piiescence.  S»> 
■where  a  party,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  misrepresentations 
alleged  to  have  been  made,  by  his  conduct  agrees  to  treat  the 
transaction  as  binding,  he  is  prccludetl  in  e<|uity  from  insisting 
un  the  luisreprcsentation  in  a  suit  fur  specific  perfornumce.* 
And  where  plaintilVs  sought  to  avoid  an  agreement  for  the 
lease  of  a  mine,  on  the  ground  of  fraudulent  misrepresentation 
of  its  value,  it  was  held  that  having  continued  to  work  the 
mine  after  full  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  fraud, 
they  were  not  entitled  to  relief.' 

The  e(iuitable  rule  as  to  acquiescence  apjdies  Mith  peculiar 
force  to  the  ciise  of  property  which  is  of  a  speculative  charac- 
ter, or  is  subject  to  contingencies,  and  can  only  be  rendered 
productive  by  a  large  and  uncertain  outlay.* 

'  SflRcy  f.  Rbodoo.  1  Bli-ili,  N.  S.  1;  Mfmslry,  :U  I,.  J.  Cli.   nin  ;    Ernest  r. 

PoUew    V.    UiiHPt'll.    1    Ha.    A.   He.  Jul;  \iviiml    ;t.{    L.    J.    Ch.    Mil;    Wall    .. 

BIiniKTha«8(tt  v.  Day, '-'  Ha.  A  He  118;  Cuckerell.  :i  D.  V.  A  .1.  712. 
VijrerH  r.  I'ike.  «  C'l.'iV  Fin.  r..'.'J  ;  riinr-  ''  Jw-inirU  \W\\i\:r^,  \..  K.  1  l'<|.  4S;i. 

UtV  Trevelyan,   11   ("1.  it    Finn.  711  ;  '  Lawrence's  I'ase,  L.  U.  2  L'h.  Ajip. 

I  Iinrniiion  v.  Ki-jhv,  Taml.  121,  It  L.  .1.  421. 

«'li.   N.   S.   211;    .Madin   v.   VecverH,  r.  *  .Macliryde  r.  Weekofl.  22  Henv.  RS3. 

Heav.   Ml;    Nm;:1<-    i-.   Haylnr.  !!  l»r.  A  *  Vii^er.s"  r.  I'ike.  S  I'l.  it  Finn.  502. 

War. ''•<•;   KilwartN  v.    .Mi-vriek.  2  Hh.  "Norway    v.    Kowe,     lit    Ve«.    HI; 

75;  Loacl<T  r.  ('lark.  2  Mae.  A-  (J.  .'is? ;  Small   r.   Atlwix.il,   fi   ("1.  tt   Finn.  2:12. 

Stone  r.   (Joilfrev,   5   I).  M.  tt  («.  70;  359;   rrenileri;a8t  r.  Turt<>n,  1  Y.  A  C. 

Lv<l(lun  I'.  M<>M."4  I>.  A-  .1.  H»»;    IMniB-  C  C  m,  l.'l   L.   .1.  V\\.   208;    Lovoll  r. 

<lalo  V.   Itiinmlai'-.  .'{  I»nw.    5.'i0 ;    Far-  Ilieki*.    2    Y.    «t    ('.    40;    .lenninjjrs    r. 

rant   r.  Hlan.  hfor.l,    1    I>.  J.  tl  S.  lo?;  Hr.-nirliton.   5   H.  M.  A  IS.  lUi;   lie;:!: 

Arclibolil  I'.  .Sillily,  I'   11.  L.  :»>(».     See  i'.    KtirimnilHon.    s    ]).    M.    A   (J.  7s7  ; 

ri<-nilcil<atli   V.  Frnoer.  :i  V.  A  H.  174;  Clt'iiKiitt  e    Hall.  2  1>.  it  .1.  17."t;  (Sros- 

l;<rnnl  r.  I.onl  I»')ne;.'al.  :«   I)<.\v.  l:i:{;  veimr  r.  sliiTrall.  2S  H.mv.  0.')'.t;  Whnl. 

Havnc  »'   FergUHon.  5  \htvi.  151;   Pear-  ley  v.  Wlialhy,  2  1).  F.  A  J.  UK). 
BOn  r.  IV'iiw^ri,  28  Bcav.  !<W  ;  (ire^ley  v. 


ON    Tin;    (iKol  Nl)    OF    rUAlI).  I'AY.j 

Tilt'  i-L>{)rescntatives  ol  :i  man  win*  lias  acijuic.sccd  in  a 
])arti(ular  transact iun,  cannKl  he  in  a  bt-ttor  jx^nition  than  the 
man  liinisi-ll'.^ 

So,  also,  niav  a  rt-niaiiuici'-nian  l>c  bnuiid  \>y  ac<[uiesoc'nce.^ 
Jiut  there  is  no  aci|nies('ence,  il  tlic  rcniaiii<lfr-nian  arts  in  a 
transaction  merely  as  an  attorney  of  the  tenant  lor  lit'e.^ 

The  doctrine  of  ac(|uicseenco  applies  even  as  between 
trustee  and  cestui  que  tnist,  even  in  cases  of  exi)ress  trusts.* 
A  cestui  (jue  trust,  -whose  interest  is  reversionary,  though  not 
bound  to  assert  his  title  until  he  conies  into  possession,  is  not 
less  capable  of  liivini;  his  assent  to  a  breach  of  trust  while 
tlie  interest  is  in  reversion,  than  when  it  is  in  possession. 
AVhetj^er  lie  has  done  so  or  not  depends  on  the  facts  of  each 
j)articular  case.' 

DELAY  AND  LAPSE  OF  TDUE. 
The  mere  lapse  of  time  during  which  a  transaction  has 
been  allowed  to  stand,  may  render  it  im impeachable  in  equity. 
A  man  Avho  seeks  the  aid  of  a  court  of  c<piity,  must  assert  his 
claim  with  reasonable  diligence.*  *  It  is  a  rule  of  equity  not 
to  encourage  stale  demands,  or  give  relief  to  parties  M'ho  sleep 
on  their  rights.     Tlie  rule  is  founded  on  the  difficulty  of  pro- 

'  Walmcsloy  >•,   Booth,   2  Atk.  25 ;  '  Life  Association  of  Scotland  v,  Sid- 

Bellew  V.  Russell,  1  Ba.  «fe  Be.' 96.  dall,  3  I).  F.  it  J.  58,  73. 

»  Shannon   i'.   Bradstrect,    1    Sch.  <fe  '  Smith  r.  I'lay.  cit.  3  Bro.  C.  C.  639 ; 

Lof.  73.  Jones  v.  Turberville,   2   Vcs.   Jr.    11; 

'  Lifliman  v.  ILircnurt,  2  Mer.  520.  llcrcy  r.  DinwoDily, '/'.  87;  Underwood 

*  Wiilker  V.  Symonds.  3  Sw.  CA,  75;  v.   Lord  CourtDwn,   2  Sch.  &  Lcf.  71; 

liurrowd   >:    Walls,   .")  1).  .M.  <S:  <}.  •lo'i;  Iliikes   r.    Cooke,  4  l)ow.  IG;  Ciialmer 

Farranl  v.   Blaucliford,   1   D.  J.   it   S.  v.  Bradl.y.  1  J.  A  W.   59 ;  Walford  t-. 

107.  Adie,  5  lla.  112. 


« 


*  Piatt  V.  Vatticr,  9  Pet.  40.");  s.  c.  1  McLean,  40;  Lupton  r.  Janncy,  13 
Pot.  381;  "Wa'le  i\  Pettibone,  11  Ohio,  537;  s.  c.  14  Ohio,  557  ;  :\IcLcan  r. 
Barton,  Earring.  Ch.  279;  Badger  r.  Badger,  2  Wall.  87;  llawley  v. 
Cramer.  4  Cow.  717  ;  Coleman  v.  Lyno,  4  Rand.  454  ;John*on  r.  Johnson,  5 
Ala.  90  ;  Graham  r.  Davidson,  2  Dev.  i!c  Bat.  Eij.  155 ;  Mclvuight  r.  Taylor, ) 
Uow.  IGl ;  Jenkins  r.  Pye,  12  Pet.  241. 


901  LOSS  111'  KiciiT  1(1  iMi'r.Acir 

curing  full  ovidi'iu'o  o(  tlu*  character  and  particulars  of  remote 
t  ran  (Mictions,  ami  is  iM<li']uii<lfiit  of  the  Statute  of  Liuiita- 
tions.'*  In  the  ea-e  of  lei^^il  titles  ami  lei^al  deuiauds,  courts 
of  equity  aet  in  oliedienee  tu  the  Statutes  of  Limitations  ;' f 
but  if  the  demand  is  nt»t  of  a  lei^al  nature,  or  is  strictly  ecjuit- 
able,  the  Statiites  of  Limitations  are  not  a  har  in  e<juity. 
Courts  of  et[uity,  however,  lo(.»k  to  tlu-m  as  guides,'  and 
assimilate  their  rules  as  far  as  tliey  can,  and  as  far  as  the  trans- 
actions will  admit,  to  the  law.*;}:  Where  a  bar  exists  by 
statute,  c(|uity  will,  in  analo:;i>us  cases,  consider  the  ecjuitablo 
rights  as  bound  by  the  same  limitations  ;*§  but  in  cases  where 
the  analoijies  of  law  do  not  apjdy,  a  court  of  equity  is 
governed  by  its  own  inherent  doctrine  not  to  encourage  stale 
demands.     Parties  who  would  have  had   the  clearest  title  to 

'  Ilovendcn  v.  Lord  Anncslcv,  2  Sch.  '  Ilovcndoii  v.  Lord  Anneslpj*.  2Sch. 

•It  Lcf.  C:{t>;  IJeokford  i:  Wmle"  17  Ves.  A  Lef.  r>:fl  ;  Fok-y  >:  Hill,  1  I'h".  899. 

h7;  Chalmcr  r.  Hradk-y,  1  J.  it  W.  f.;{ ;  "  llainilton    v.  "(Irunt,    H    Dow.    33; 

Hiikcs  >:  Cooke.  4  Dow.  lt> ;   Untulitre  Wlialloy  i'.  Whalk-y,  3  Bliijh,  17. 

r.  I'arkiiis,  ti  Dow.  1 1'.',  2:'.2  ;  Wliaik-y  *  Cholmoiuk-iiy  v.  t'linton,  4  Bligh, 

r.  Wlialiev,  3  Kli;;li.  17;  Ci»<ilinoiulr!i'y  1,95;  Brooksbuiik  r.  Siiiitli,  2  Y.  «t  C. 

r.  Cliiiton"  4    hii-li,  119  ;  Sil.berintr  r.  CO. 

Earl  of  Uak-arrcs.  3   De^'.  it   .S.   7;i.'. ;  '  Smith  c.  Clay,  cit.  3  Bro.  C.  C.  639; 

Browne  I'.  Cross,  1-1  lieav.  lO'i;  llarl-  lloveiiden  v.  Lord  Annealey,  2  Sch.  A 

well  r.  Coiviii,  111  IJeav.  1  »<i;   Beaden  .'.  Lcf.   1107,   f,:,2;   Wlialhy  i'.  "Whallcy,  8 

Kins,  9  Ha.  r>:;2  ;   Kidi;ht  c  Bowycr,  2  Bii>;Ii,  17;  (  liolinoiuk'fcy  r.  Clinton,  4 

D.  «k  J.  421.  443;  (Jresley  r.  Mousley,  Blii,'!!,  1,  119;  Sihberinj^  )■.  Karl  of  Bnl- 

4  D.  «k  J.    7S;   Harc(jurt   r.    White,   28  carre.s.  3  De;j.  it  S.  73r>;  Duke  of  Leeds 

Beav.  312;  Skoltowo  v.  Williams,  3  D.  v.  Lord  Amherst,  2  I'h.  117. 
F.  dj  J.  635. 


*  Provost  r.  Gratz,  0  Wheat.  481 ;  Randolph  r.  Ware,  :J  Crunch,  503; 
JVeatherfonl  r.  Tale.  2  Strobli.  Eq.  27;  Peacock  r.  Black,  lllalst.Ch.  535; 
'.]  Green'sCh.Ol  ;  Bon<l  r.  Brown.  1  Harp.  Cli.  270;  Pajje  r.  Booth,  1  Hob. 
101  ;  Ludlow  r.  Cooper,  \.l  Oliio.  5.")2 ;  Uraham  r.  Torriancc,  1  Ireil.  Eq. 
210;  Shearin  i.  Katon.  2  Ired.  i:.|.  '2H'2. 

t'Peyton  r.  Stith, .".  Pet.  -iH.-j ;  Iliuuhtrt  r.  Trinity  Chnn  li,  7  I'ai^''.  lO"*; 
B.  c.  24  Wend.  587;  Hawley  r.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  747, 

I  Kane  r.  Blooil^oo.!,  7  Johns.  Cli.  llO;  Elmendorf  r.  Taylor.  10  Wheat. 
ir)2;    Hunt  r.  WicklilTe,   2   Pet.    201;    Varliek  r.  E<lwanls,    1   HolV.  Clk 

382. 

§.Mi(h(Mi.|  r.  (;iro<l,  J  lIow.oiKi;  Miller  r.  McIntyre.O  Pet.  01 ;  Bowman 
c.  Wutben,  1  How.  18U;  Perkins  p.  Curtmell,  1  Ilarring.  270. 


ON  Tin:  cuoLND  OF  riJAUD.  3()r» 

relief,  liad  they  come  in  reasoiiahlc  time,  may  deprive  them- 
selves (»f  their  eqiiity  hy  a  dehiy  wliich  falls  sliort  of  the  ])eriod 
fixed  by  the  statutes.'  Lapse  of  time,  when  it  does  not  operate 
as  a  positive  or  statutory  bar,  operates  in  ecjuity  as  an  evidence 
of  assent,  ac(pii(.'SL'ence,  or  -waiver.'^  The  two  propositions  of 
bar  by  length  of  time,  and  bar  by  acquiescence,  are  not  dis- 
tinct propositions.  They  constitute  but  one  proposition.^ 
Accpiicscence,  however,  as  distinguished  from  delay,  imports 
conduct.^ 

The  rule  that  a  man  who  sleeps  on  his  rights  cannot  come 
to  a  court  of  equity  for  relief,  holds  good  not  only  in  circum- 
stances where  the  length  of  time  would  render  it  extremely 
difficidt  to  ascertain  the  true  state  of  the  fact,  but  where  the 
true  state  of  the  tact  is  easily  ascertained,  and  where  it  is 
perfectly  clear  that  relief  would  have  been  given  had  there 
been  no  delay.' 

No  precise  or  defined  limit  of  time  can  be  stated  within 
which  the  interposition  of  the  court  must  be  sought.  "What 
is  a  reasonable  time  cannot  well  be  deiined  so  as  to  establish 
any  general  rule,  aud  must  in  a  great  measure  depend  upon 
the  exercise  of  the  sound  discretion  of  the  court  under  all  the 
circumstances    of    each    particular    case.®  *      In    Gregory   v. 

•Oliver  V.   Court,  8  Pri.    167.  1<>8;  Wcntworth   v.   Lloyd.   ."2  Bear.    4C7; 

GreE;ory  i'.  (lroc;<>ry,  Cooj).  "iitl  ;  llickes  Dowius  c.  Jenninixs,  ib.  i'M). 

II.  Cooke,  4  Dow.  lO  ;  Wlialley  c.  Wlial-  »  rickeriiiij  v.  Lord  Sfamford,  2  Ves. 

lev,  3  Hliijh,  17  ;  ClioliuoiitlcK-y  r.  Cliii-  Jr.   583;    (ireirory   i:   Greijorv,   Coop, 

ton.  4  Bli-li.  1,  i'.'' ;  Champion  r.  Ui?:l)V,  201;  Whalley  f.  *Whallpv,'"3  hligh.   1, 

9L.  J.  Ch.  N.  y.  211;  bibberini;  »'.  Earl  13;  Roberts   v.   Tunstali.   4   Ila.  2r.7  ; 

of  Balcarres,  3  De*;.  <fe  ^^.  735;  Roberts  Life  Association  of  Scotland  r.  .siJilall, 

V.  Tunstall.  4  lla.  257  ;  Browne  v.  Cross,  3  1).  F.  «L-  J.  73.     See   Stewart's  Case, 

14  Beav.  luG ;  Hartwell   v.   Colvin,   10  L.  R   1  Ch.  App.  513. 

Bcav.    140;  Baker  ;■.   Read,   18  Beav.  '  Life  Association  of  Scotland  r.  Sid- 

898;  Wright  v.  Vanderplank,   8  I).  M.  dall,  3  I).  F.  it  J.  IS,  per  Turner,  L.J. 

A  G.  133;  Grcsley  i'.  Mousley,  4  I),  ifc  *  Lyddon  i:  Moss,  4  D.  AJ.  lot.  .See 

J.  78;  Lyddon  >:  Moss,   ib.   104  ;  liar-  Murray  r.  Rainier,  2  Seh.  «fc  Lef.  486; 

court  r.  White,  28  Beav.  312  ;  Cleg^j  v.  Archl/old  v.  Scully,  9  H.  L.  360. 

Edniondson,   8  D.  M.  &  G.  810;  Clan-  "  Beekford  v.  W'ade,  17  Ves.  87,  97. 

ricardo    v.    Uenning,    SO    Beav.     175;  *  Gresle}'  v.  Mousley,  4  D.  «t  J.  78. 


♦  Hawley  r.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  717 ;  Banks  r.  Jutlah,  8  Ct.  14>;  Uallctt  c. 


rjOC  Ldss  or  incur  to  imim.aoii 

Grcirorv*  Sir  W.  (ir:int.  M.  li.,  nfuMd  to  set  aside  ii  imrchaso 
]>y  a  trustee  atU'r  a  lapse  of  eigliteeii  years.  So  in  Selsey  v. 
Khoades,'  where  a  lease  was  «;ranted  to  a  steward,  and  eleven 
years  had  ehi]>sed,  the  court  refused  to  set  the  lease  aside, 
thoui^h  there  were  special  circumstances  in  the  case.  So  in 
I'aker  v.  Keed,'  a  bill  liled  after  the  lapse  of  seventeen  years, 
to  set  aside  a  purclj:i>e  of  a  testators  estate  hy  his  executor 
at  an  undervalue,  was  dismissed  on  tlie'irround  of  <le]ay.*  The 
question  as  to  delay  may  be  much  allected  by  reference  to  the 
nature  of  the  i>roperty,'  or  to  the  change  of  circumstances  as 
to  the  character  or  value  of  the  property  in  the  intermediate 
period.'*  A  (U'lay  wliit-li  inii^ht  have  been  of  no  consequence 
in  an  ordinary  case,  may  be  amply  sufficient  to  bar  the  title  of 
relief,  when  the  property  is  of  a  speculative  character,  or  is 
subject  to  contingencies,'  or  where  the  rights  and  liabilities  of 
others  liavo  bi'cii  in  the  meantime  varied.^  If  the  pro])erty  is 
of  a  speculative  or  precarious  nature,  it  is  the  duty  of  a  man 
complaining  of   fraud    to    put    forward   liis  complaint  at  the 

'  Coop.  201.  Vl'^rr  t-.  Eilmondson,  ib.  807 ;  Ernest  t: 

»  2  Sill),  d:  St.  41 ;   1  Bligh,  N.  S.  1.  Vivian.  :>:{  L.  J.  t'li.  51:5. 

»  18  IJiMV.  :J'J8.                          .  *  llickts  r.  Cixiko.  4  Dow.  \C>;  Wcnt- 

*  See  I'urcell  r.  Mncnnmnra.  14  Ves.  wortli  r.  l.loyd,  '.V2  Hi-av.  407  ;  Uidgwuy 

91  ;  Oliver  v.  Court,  H  IVi.  127  ;  Molony  v.  Newsteail,  :{  1).  F.  it  .1.  474. 

V.  UEstrango.  Beat.  Un; ;  (;illi-tt  i-.  I'tp-  '  Attwooil  c.  Siiiall.  0  CI,  »t  Fin.  232, 

IHTtorn.  a   lleav.   7n  ;   li-iburts  >•.  Tun-  Sri7 ;    Wnlford    r.    Adic.    6    Ha.    112; 

stall.  4  llu.  2.'.7  ;  Matliew    r.    Jirise,  14  I'renderu'a.-^t  r.  Turton,   1  Y.  tt  C.  C.  C. 

li.uv.  ai:!;  Asipianc;  r.  Wutto,  20  Ik-av.  'JS  ;  Ki  L.  J.  Cli  2i".S  ;  Cleg'.;  v.  Eilmond- 

48(t;   Allfrev   «'.   Allfivv,    1    Mac.  «t  (J.  son,  SD.  M.  it  (J.  7S7  ;  Clements  t".  Hall, 

S7;   IJarwcIl  i:  IJarwell,  :i4  Ikav.  :i71  ;  2  D.  A  J.  173;  Ernest  v.  Vivian,  33  L. 

I'olts  V.  Surr,  il>.  r»43  ;  I'roctor  i'.  Uol/in-  J.  Ch.  513. 

son,  3.'>  lleav.  XiTi.  '  lUdgwav  v.  Newstoad,  3  1).  1'.  it  .1. 

•'Hul<  h  V.  Hatch.  9  Ve".  2'.»2  ;  Wriijlit  474.     See  lliekes  r.  Cooke,  4  Dow.  1(1 ; 

r.    Vanderi.laiik,  8  I),   il.  &  G.    133 ;  Tolta  v.  Surr,  34  Leav.  643. 


CdIHiih,  10  now.  174  ;  Michoiul  r.  Girod,  4  ITow.  503  ;  Boone  r.  Chiles.  10 
IVt.  177;  Cf.uNon  r.  Wiiltdii.  1)  Pet.  02;  Kiiif?  r.  Morlonl,  Saxion,  274  ; 
Aviott  r.  Kinj;,  1 1  Leij,'h,  4H0  ;  NcIhoii  r.  CarriiiKton,  4  Miinf.  :1:12  ;  Heunlon 
r.  Bcuvy,  1  Litt.  5:1;  Olwrt  r.  Olurt,  1  IJeashy.  42:i. 

♦  Wn^nier  r.  Hainl,   7   How.   2;J4 ;  Smith  r.  ThoinpHon,  7  H.  Mon.  305 
Carroll  r.  Hicf,    1    Walkcr'H  Cb.  :i7:) ;  MDouald  r.   Ncilson,  2  Cow.  130; 
FcrwJD  r.  Sanger,  Davies,  252. 


ON  Tin:  cuoLM)  or  fuald.  .'i07 

earliest  possible  time'  lie  cannot  he  allowed  to  remain 
passive,  prepared  to  afHrm  tlie  transaction  if  the  concern 
slioiiM  prosper,  or  to  repudiate  it  if  tliat  should  prove  to  his 
advantai^a*.'^*  Parties  who  are  in  the  position  of  sharehohlers 
in  eonjpanies  must,  if  they  come  t<j  the  court  to  Ite  relea.-c  d 
from  their  shares  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  come  with  the 
utmost  diligence  and  promptitude.'  In  the  case  of  companies 
formed  under  the  Companies'  Act,  18^.2,  persons  who  ai)i)ly 
for  shares  on  the  faith  of  a  prospectus,  are  hound  to  ascertain 
at  the  earliest  possible  moment  whether  the  memorandum  and 
articles  of  association  are  in  accordance  with  the  prospectus. 
If  they  fail  to  do  so,  and  the  objects  of  the  company  are 
extended  beyond  those  descriljed  in  the  prospectus,  the  persons 
who  have  so  taken  shares  on  the  faith  of  the  prospectus  will  be 
held  bound  by  acquiescence.'' 

The  (piestion  as  to  delay  may  be  also  materially  affected 
by  reference  to  the  relation  whicirsubsists  between  the  ]jarties. 
If,  for  instance,  the  transaction  be  between  solicitor  and  client, 
a  delay  which  wouUl  l»e  fatal  in  other  cases  may  be  permitted, 
for  the  solicitor  must  know  tliat  the  onus  of  supporting  the 
transaction  will  rest  on  him,  and  that,  if  he  desire  it  to  be 
upheld,  he  must  preserve  the  evidence  which  will  be  required 
to  uphold  it.' 

The  rules  of  the  court  as  to  lapse  of  tim.e  being  a  bar  in 

'  Jcnninirs  v.  Brou£jhton,   5  D.  M.  <fc  Co.  of  Venezuela  v.  Kisch,  L.  R.  2  Ai)p. 

G,  12G:  Ernest  V.  Vivian,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  Ca.  125. 

513.  *  Peel's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  App.  CS4  ; 

»  Wnlford  v.  Adie,  5  Ila.  112;  Pren-  Oakes   i-.  Turquniul,  L.  R.   2  App.  Ca. 

dcr"-ast   V.   Tiirton,   13  L.J.  Ch.  2G8 ;  352,  ;>ec  Lord  Chehnsford. 

Cowc-U  V.  \Va«s,  19  L.J.  Ch.  455  ;  Law-  '  Grosley  v.   Mou-^ley,  4  D.  &.  J.  TS. 

rente's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Cli.  App.  425.  See   M'DoiiaM    v.    M'Donald.  1  Blitrh, 

'Reese    River    Silver    Miiiini;   Co.,  315;  Mor-;an  r.  Lewes,  4  Dow.  20.  45; 

Sniitli's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch   App.   013 ;  Cluunpion   v.  Ri^rby,  '.»  L.  J.  Ch.  X.  S. 

Denton  v.  Macneil,  L.  R.   2  Eq.   352;  211;  Allirey  v.  AllfP'V.  1  .Mac.  A- (J.  87. 

Taifes'  Case,  L.  R.   3   Eq.  7'.»5  ;    White-  Conip.  LydJon  v.  Moss,  4  D.  «fc  J.  104. 
house's  Case,  «6.  794  ;  Central  Railway 

*  Banks  r.  Judah,  8  Ct.  145;  Pintard  r.  Mariin,  1  Smed.  &  ^lar.  IQO; 
Rogers  c.  Saunders,  1 8  Me.  94. 


.■>0S  LOSS  or  incur  to  nirrAcii 

t'(|uity,  apjily  to  /.\<va  of  miistnu'tivc  trii>t,'  "^  imd  even  to 
transactions  hetworii  trustee  ami  (r.sfui  <ju>  trust  in  respect  of 
the  trnst  estate,'  ns  well  as  to  onlinarv  transactions.  Len«^th 
of  time  can,  however,  have  no  ellcct  hetween  trustee  and 
cefitui  tjuv  fnifit,  exce])t  the  trusts  aro  ])ro])erly  executed.' 
There  is  a  wi<k'  distinction  between  trusts  whicii  aro  actual 
and  express,  and  constructivi-  trusts.  A  trust  l»y  which  a  man 
nndcrtakes  to  hold  and  api>1y  ]>roperty  lor  the  benefit  of 
another  is  widely  different  from  the  case  of  ownership,  subject 
to  the  claims  of  another,  if  he  thiid<s  proper  to  enforce  it.* 
In  tlie  case  of  coiitiniiinir  express  trusts,  created  liy  act  of 
parties,  no  time  is  a  bar,  for  from  the  privity  existing  between 
the  jvirties,  the  possession  of  the  one  is  the  ]>ossession  of  the 
other,  and  there  is  no  adverse  title.'  f     Xor  is  length  of  time  a 


'  Iloventlcn  v.  Ix>nl  Annosley,  2Sch.  *  Toft  i'.  Stoiihenson,  7  Ha.  15. 
A  Lcf.  ii.i-i;  H<'cl<forcl  v.  Wntlei  17  Ves.  '  t'liolmomk-loy  v.  (  linton,  4  Bligh, 
y7;  Kzp'irtc  HisoU,  3  Y.  d:  C.  f>l7;  1 ;  WfiliUrlnirn  i-.  WoiliiiThurn.  2Kcen, 
C\t'<rfr  V.  Kdinoii(l-on,  8  D.  M.  «t  G.  787  ;  7 1'.>.  4  M.  <k  C.  41 ;  Kiiii^'lit  i-.  Bowyer, 
CIanri?.irfle  f.  llciiiiing.  'M)  Beiiv.  180.  2  D.  «t  J.  121.  lis ;  C'laiuk-nnlo  v.  Hen- 
See  l{ol:e  V.  (ir.'fjory,  34  L.  J.  (  li.  275.  nins:,  3'>  Iic-:iv.  175.     See  .\tt.-Gen.  v. 

'  (Jretjory    v.    (;rr;;<)ry,   ("<»ip.   'jnl  ;  Fislmumi^ers' Co.,  5  M.  it  (".   1<>;   Life 

llcjlHTts  r.  Tunstjill,  4  Ha.  'J.'>7 ;  Baker  As-oeiation  of^entland  «-.  SuUliU,  3  F. 

V.  Held.  IN  Keuv.  .•;'.i8 ;  Burwell  i-.  Bar-  tt  .1.  5S,  73;  M'Domicll  i-.  White.  11  II. 

well.  34  Btav.  371  ;  but  see  Siuitli  r.  L.  57<».     See  Fruaks  v.  Bollaas,  37  L. 

Bakes.  'JU  Beuv.  508.  J.  fh.  155. 

•Fruuks  V.  Bullans,  37  L.  J.  C'li.  15.'). 


•  Furniira  v.  Brooks,  0  Pick.  212;  Boone  v.  Chiles,  10  Pit.  177;  El- 
mcndorf  r.  Tuylor,  10  Wheat.  102;  Beaubien  r.  Bcaubien,  23  How.  190; 
Tiitc  r.  Connor,  2  Dev.  Kq.  224  ;  Locke  v.  Arnistroni,',  2  Dev.  A:  Bat.  Eq. 
247. 

t  Miclioticl  r.  Ginul,  4  How.  ."»();];  Seymour  r.  Freer.  8  Wall.  202;  Dc- 
couche  r.  Swetier,  '•'>  Johns.  Ch.  lUO;  Cook  r.  Williams,  1  Green's  Ch.  200; 
Btatc  r.  Mc(fOwen,  2  Ireil.  Eq.  9 ;  Pinson  r.  Ivcy,  1  Yerpf.  290 ;  Lexington 
r.  Lindsay,  2  A.  K.  Marnh.  4l:j;  Lindsay  r.  Lindsay,  1  Dessau.  I."i0. 

Limitations  lii-^in  to  run  a^'ainst  a  trust  only  from  the  time  when  i(  is 
openly  disavowed  by  the  trustee,  who  insists  upon  an  adverse  ri^ht  and 
interest,  whieij  is  fully  ami  une<|uivoeaIly  made  known  to  tiie  ctxtiii  que 
trust.  Oliver  e.  Piatt.  :{  How.  '.iX\ ;  Kane  r.  Bloodj,'ood,  7  .Johns.  Ch.  90; 
Boone  c.  Chiles,  10  Pet.  90;  Taylor  c.  Benhum,  5  How.  2:53;  Wader. 
Green,  :J  Humph.  547. 


ON     Till;    <iU<)l  Nl>   HI'    FKAJ  1).  3fM) 

bar  wlicre  a  deht  lias  acrnied  in  coriKequcnce  of  a  vi(»liitiuii  of 
coniidi'iico  be.stowx'd  in  a  iiiluciary  character.*  JJiit  if  the  trust, 
thoiio'li  exi)res.s,  l)c  not  continuouH,  and  the  case  he  one  of  ^ross 
laches,  tlic  general  niK-  (•fciiuit  y,  that  ('ii('oiira,:;-('iiiL;iit  is  nut  to 
be  given  to  stale  (Icniands,  is  c<|uall_v  a[)|ilical»lc.- 

If  tliere  be  hiches  on  hnlli  si<h'S,  the  ordinary  rules  as  to 
dehiy  and  accpiiescence  may  not  a[)ply.^ 

Time,  liowever,  does  not  begin  to  run  against  a  man  in 
cases  of  fraud,  imtil  he  has  knowledge  of  the  fraud.  Time  be- 
gins to  run  only  from  the  discovery.**  The  Statute  of  Limita- 
tions is  no  bar  in  equity  in  cases  of  fraud.''  The  right  of  the 
party  defrauded  is  not  aliected  by  lapse  of  time,  or,  generally 
speaking,  by  anything  done  or  omitted  to  be  done,  so  long  as 
he  remains,  ^vithout  any  fault  of  his  own,  in  ignorance  of  the 
fraud  that  has  been  committed."     Lapse  of  time  imputed  as 


'  Teed  v.  Bccrc,  .5  Jivr.  N.  S.  381.  Ph.  3G0 ;  Allfrey  v.   AUfrey,  1   Man.  <fe 

"  Brij^ht  V.   I.eiroitoii,   2  D.  F.  A  .T.  J.  99;  Walsliam  v.  Sliiinton,  1  D.  J.  <b 

60fi.     See  M'Douiicll  i>.  White,   11    11.  G.  <)78;  He  lieese  Silver  Minin"^  Co., 

L.  570.  Sinitli'rt  Ca.<e,  L  H.  2  Ch.  App.  013. 

'  Hicks  V.  Mornnt,  2  Dow  &  CI.  414.  "  St,iir-;i.s  v.  Morse,  24  Ileav.  .'J41. 

*  Bleniierhasset  r.  Day.  2  Bn.  &.  Be.  "  llolfe  ;■.  Gregory,  8t  L.  J.  Ch.  27o 

129;  Blair  v.  Bromley,'  5   Ila.  559,   2  See  AUfrey  v.  Allfrey,  1  Mac.  &  G.  99. 


♦Veazie  r.  Williams,  8  How.  134  ;  Wamburzce  i;.  Kennedy,  4  Dessau. 
474;  Longworth  v.  Hunt,  11  Ohio  St.  R.  194;  Pendleton  r.  Galloway,  9 
Ohio,  178;  Haywood  r.  JIarsh,  6  Yerg.  69;  Harrell  v.  Kelly,  2  ]\IeCord. 
426;  Huston  v.  Cantril,  11  Leigh,  136;  Eigleberi,aT  r.  Kiblcr.  1  Hill's  Ch. 
113;  Steele  r.  Kinkle,  3  Ala.  3.j'3. 

No  case  can  he  found  in  which  a  court  of  equity  has  refused  to  give 
relief  within  the  lifetime  of  either  of  the  parties  upon  whom  the  fraud  i.s 
proved,  or  within  thirty  years  after  it  has  been  discovered,  or  becomes 
known  to  the  party  whose  rights  are  affected.  Michaud  v.  Girod,  4  How. 
503. 

The  rule  only  applies  where  the  trust  is  clearly  established,  and  where 
the  facts  have  been  fraudulently  and  successfully  concealed  by  the  trustee 
from  the  centiii  que  trust.     Badger  r.  Badger,  2  Wall.  87. 

Where  a  party  liy  his  own  fraudulent  acts  and  representations  has  al- 
layed all  reasonable  suspicion  of  his  original  fraud,  and  thus  attempted  to 
obtain  an  unconscious  advantage  by  the  lapse  of  time,  a  court  of  equity 


310  LOSS  <»K  Kiciir   ro  imi'i.acii 

Inches  iiiav  l»o  excused  Ity  tlio  obsciirity  of  the  transaction, 
wlierehv  a  man  is  disuhled  iVi'iii  nhtaiiiinij  lull  iiil'nrniatioii  of 
his  riirhts.'  Time  (hies  not  lie-in  to  run  aLrainst  a  man,  so  as 
to  har  the  remi'dy,  until  he  has  full  information  of  his  rii^hts 
and  injuries,'*  or  has  in  his  possession  tlio  means  of  knowl- 

'  Murray   f.   rnlmcr.  2   Scli.   <t  Lof.  v.    (l.nrlor,   4    L.   J.    *li.    N.  S.  209; 

48rt.           "  Cliarlcr   r,    Trcvdvun,    11  i  I.   it  Fin. 

»Snlkilcl    V.    Vernon.    1    Kd-n.    r.4 ;  711;  IJrowne  i-.  Cioss.   H   IJonv.  InC; 

Pl.MimrliiKsot  I.  l»iiv,  2  Ha.  ct  !><•.  ini.  Tnrkcr    r.     lUoxmn.    20     Hcav.  205; 

Hit;  Whall.v  I'.  NViiallov.  :»   Uliu'li.  1  ;  Savory  r.  King,  5  II.  L.  627. 
O'Neill  r.  llnmili,  lieat.  GI8  ;  Trevclyan 


will  (lisrcpinl  the  statute  of  limitiitions.     Phalen  r.  Clark,  19  Ct.  421; 
McClurc  r.  Ashl.y,  7  Rich.  Eq.  430. 

Where  there  is  a  separate  and  distinct  chancery  jiirisdiclion.  the  ques- 
tion of  fraud  as  a  means  of  preventini;  the  eflVct  and  operation  of  Ibo 
statute  of  limitations  must  be  referred  to  that  jurisdiction,  and  is  not  to 
1)C  relied  on  by  way  of  replication  to  the  plea  of  tlie  statute  in  a  court  of 
law.     Franklin  r.  Waters,  «  Gill,  322. 

Fraud  can  not  be  replied  to  a  plea  of  the  statute  of  limitations  in  a 
court  of  law.  Troupe  r.  Smith,  20  Johns.  3'-5 ;  Leonard  r.  Pitney,  5  Wend. 
30;  Callis  r.  Waddy,  2  Munf.  511  ;  Rice  r.  White,  4  Lei,<rli.  474  ;  Miles  r. 
Barry,  1  Ilill  (S.  C),  29G ;  Hamilton  r.  Smith,  3  Murph.  IIJ;  Kuddick  v, 
Leggatt,  3  Murph.  539;  IJaines  r.  Williams,  3  Irid.  481;  Fianklin  r. 
Waters,  8  Gill,  322;  Smith  v.  Bishop.  9  Vt.  110;  Lewis  r.  Houston,  11 
Tex.  042  ;  Campbell  r.  Vining,  23  HI.  523  ;  Way  v.  Cutting,  20  N.  H.  187 ; 
Duvall  V.  Stafford,  4  Bilib,  318.  Contra,  Ma.ss.  Turnpike  Co.  r.  Field,  3 
Mas<.  201;  Livermorc  r.  .Johnson,  27  Miss.  284;  Cole  r.  :M(Glathry,  0 
Gre«nl.  131 ;  .Tones  r.  Conoway,  4  Yeatcs,  109  ;  Ilarrisburg  Bank  r.  Foster, 
8  Watts,  12;  lUicker  r.  Lightner,  40  Penn.  139;  P^aymond  r.  Simonson,  4 
Blackf.  85;  Mitchell  f.  Thompson,  1  McLean,  85 ;  Slurwoixl  r.  Sutton,  5 
Mason.  143;  Cocke  r.  M'Glnniss,  1  Mart.  &  Ycrg,  301;  Fee  r  Fee,  10  Ohio, 
400;  Convers  r.  Kenans,  4  Geo.  308;  Persons  r.  Jones,  12  Geo.  3T1  ,  Hsu-- 
rcll  r.  Kelly,  2  McCord,  20. 

The  fraud  that  will  be  sunicitnt  to  remove  the  bar  of  the  statute  of 
limitations  must  be  actual,  not  constructive  fraud.     Farnani  r.  Brooks,  9 

Pick.  212. 

Tin-  phiintifTcan  not  excuse  his  negligence  by  the  fact  that  the  defend- 
ant kniw  all  along  lluit  he  was  in  the  wrong.  Whatever  the  character  of 
the  injun,-,  and  wht  tlier  n.mmitted  in  good  or  bad  faith,  the  statute  bases 
itself  on  time.     Humbert  r.  Trinity  Church,  7  Paige,  r.»5;   8.  r.  24  Wend. 

587. 

*  Munson  r.  Hallowell  27  Tex.  457;  Tate,  >,  Tair.  1  Dcv.«k  Bat.  i:.|.  22; 

Crofl  r.  Arthur,  3  Dessau.  223. 


ON   TIIK   GROUND   (M'    IKAI  I). 


311 


edge,'  *  or,  ;if  least,  hiia  Bullieieiit  notice  t(»  ))iit  Iiim  on  in- 
quirv,'+  ainl,  in  cases  ^vhcre  the  transaction  lias  taken  ]»lace 
nmlci'  |>ressiire,  or  tlie  exercise  of  untlue  iiifliiciice,  in  eniaiK-i- 
jiatcd  troni  llie  dominion  under  wliicli  Ik;  htood  at  llic  date  of 
the  transaction.^  The  ohjection  of  time  is  removed,  so  long  as 
a  man  remains,  without  any  fault  of  his  own,  in  ignorance  of 
his  rights  and  injuries,*  or  is  under  a  legal  disahiiity,':}:  or  so 
lonsr  fvs  the  dominion  or  uiidm^  iiilhiciice  which  vitiated  tlie 
transaction  is  in  full  force/'  The  mere  fact,  however,  of  tlie 
poverty  or  pecuniary  emharrassment  of  the  injured  or  de- 
frauded party,  is  not  a  sufficient  excuse  for  delay  ;'§  nor  will 
the  mere  notice  or  assertion  of  a  claim,  unaccompanied  by 


>  Bnkcr  v.  Rend,  3  W.  R.  US. 

'Clnnricnrdc  c.  Ilenninsr,  30  Boav. 
lYr);  Spaekinan's  Case,  31  L.  J.  ("h. 
821,  3'2('. ;  Stanhope's  Case,  L  R,  1  Cli. 
App.  liil.  See  Dnirjett  ».  Enu-rson,  3 
Story  (Amcr.),  733;  Comp.  I'artridije 
t'.  Usboriu'.  r>  Rns9.  lOr), '232;  Re  Reese 
River  Silver  Miiiinjj  Co  ,  Smitli'a  Case, 
L.  R.  2Cli.  App.  f.l2. 

'Gregory  ''.  Oreijorv.  Coon.  201; 
Dawson  v.'  Massev.'l  B.  A  B.  210; 
Roche  »•.  O'Brien,  'ih.  33S ;  Avlwiird  r. 
K'earnev,  2  B.  .t  B.  4f.8  ;  6'Noili  v. 
llaiuill,"  Heat.  618;  Addis  v.  Cami-hcll, 
4  Beav.  401 ;  Clianipion  v.  Rigbv,  0  L. 
J.  Ch.  N.  S.  211  ;  Bellamy  v.  Sahine.  2 
Ph.  423;  Grosvenor  v.  Sherratt,  2S 
lk>av.  659;  Sharp  f.  Leach,  31  Be.av. 
401. 

*  Trevelvan  v.  Charter,  4  L.  J.  Ch. 
N.  S.  209;"Chartcr  r.  Trevelyan,  11  CI. 


<t  Fin.  711;  Allfrev  v.  AUfrev.  1  Mac. 
<k  G.  87;  Bromley  v.  Blair,' 16  L.J. 
Ch.  108;  Mathew  v.  BvUe,  14  Beav. 
343  ;  Rolfe  v.  Greerory,  V.l  L.  J.  Ch. 
275 ;  Spackman's  Case,  ih.  320 ;  Stan- 
hope's Ca«e,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  A  p.  101. 

*  Diiko  of  L  eds  v.  Lord  Arahersf ,  2 
Ph.  117;  Neesom  v.  Clark^on,  2  Ha. 
163;  Wright  v.  Vanderplank,  8  D.  M. 
<fe  G.  133  ;  Gresley  v.  ilousley,  4  D.  »fc 
J.  78. 

•  Wright  V.  Vanderplank,  8  D.  M.  A 
G.  133;  Gresley  .•.  Moiii^lcy,  4  D.  &  J. 
7S;  Sharp  >:  Leach,  31  Beav.  401.  See 
Gregory  v.  Greixory.  Cor.p.  201  ;  Addis 
J'.  Caini)l)ell,  4  Beav.  4<il. 

'  Roberts  r.  Tunstall.  4  Ha.  257; 
Champion  >•.  Rigby,  Taml.  421  ;  9  L. -L 
Ch.  N.  S.  211.  See  Ifovenden  i'.  Lord 
Annesley,  2  Sch.  &  Lef.  6u7,  639. 


*  Farnam  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212 ;  Ilite  r.  Flite,  1  B.  :Mon.  177 ;  Sliannon 
V.  Whiic,  G  Rich.  Eq.  OG;  Buckuer  v.  Calcote,  28  Miss.  432;  Parkliam 
V.  McCrary,  G  Rich.  Eq.  140. 

t  Maxwell  v.  Kennedy,  8  How.  210 ;  Edmonds  v.  Goodwin,  28  Geo.  .38  ; 
Smith  V.  Talbot,  18  Tex.  77-1 ;  Smith  r.  Fly,  24  Tex.  345 ;  Whaley  v.  Eliott, 
1  A.  K.  :Marsh.  34.3. 

X  Ochlcr  p.  "Walker,  2  H,  &  G.  323;  Carr  r.  Bol),  7  Dana,  417  ;  Fall  r. 
Torreance,  2  Ilawk?,  490. 

There  is  no  equity  from  a  disability  that  -was  voluntary  and  self-im- 
posed.    Wa<rner  r.  Bird.  7  How.  234. 

§  Perry  v.  Crary,  3  Mo.  31G ;  Locke  v.  Armstrong,  2  Dev.  &  Bat.  Eq.  117. 


:n*2  LOSS  OF  i:i(;iiT  T(»  iMiT.Arn 

any  act   to  jxivc   it   cllcct,  kvr\^  alivi'  a  ri.:,'lit  which  \v..uhl  1»e 
otherwise  bant  <1.' 

"When  time  has  once  hcunin  t«>  run  ai:ain>t  a  man,  all  |>er- 
soiis  who  derive  their  rii^'ht  throu_i,'h  him  will  he  all'ccted  with 
the  disabilities  which  allected  him.'  Nor  can  the  representiv 
lives  of  ft  man  be  in  a  better  position  than  tin*  man  himself.'* 
A  remainder-man  may,  durintr  the  lite  of  the  tenant  for  lite, 
file  a  bill  to  impeach  a  sale  nnder  a  decree,  but  ho  is  not  bar- 
red by  laches,  if  he  wait  until  the  death  of  the  tenant  for  life.* 

PURCHASE  FOR  VALUE  WITIKHT  NOTICE. 
The  riirht  to  impeach  a  transaction  on  the  ground  of  fraud, 
has  no  place  as  ai^^ainst  third  ])arties,  who  have  paid  money  and 
acquired  a  leijal  rii^ht  to  property,  w  ithout  notice  of  the  fraud. 
As  a'minst  n  purchaser  for  valuable  consideration  withnut 
notice,  having  the  legal  title,  no  relief  can  be  had  in  equity. 
If  a  man  has  paid  his  money  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  an- 
other partv  has  an  equitable  claim  to  the  ])roperty,  a  court  <.t' 
equitv  will  not  deprive  him  of  the  bcndit  of  his  legal  title, 
even  although  his  equitable  claim  be  of  later  date  than  that  of 
the  other  partv.'*     The  ride  that  a  man  who  advances  money 

'  Clcffj;  «••  Edmomlson,  8  D.  M.  A  H.  *  Lloyil    r.   Pn>^sin-hnin,   Coop.   l.Vi; 

787-  Ernest  v.  Viviun,  33  L.   J.    Cli.  Att.-(;cii.  r.  Kliiit.  1    lln.  ir.C;   IJlaoki.- 

513*  c.    Clark,     15    15oav.    ^^•.'> ;   CoMK-tt  v. 

'Clanricnrdc  v.   Ilcnninp:,  30  Bcav.  Brock,     20     Hoav.     B2S;    DaWMin    r. 

n.-i;    Krni-st  v.   Vivian.   33  L.   J.   Cli.  I'linci-.  2  1).  .t  J.  41  ;  Dod.ls  v.  llilla.  2 

r.13'    Sec  Murray  f.  raliiKT.  2  Sell.  A  11.  A   M.  •121;  Coiup.  V.irlcy  ••.  Cooke. 

Lef.  480;  Whull.y  f.  Wliailuy,  3  ISligli.  1   <'ilir.   230;   Otfilvio    v.    Ji-nlTreson.   2 

I     '                        "                    .            -  (iilV.  37'.i;  Cotlnm  r.  Eastern  Counties 

*  Skottowo  f.  WilliaiiiH.  3  I).  F.  «t  J.  Itailwny  Co.  1  .1.  A  II.  213.  See  I'ur- 
ri35  tjco  iJcllew  V.  Uiissell,  1  Un.  &  cell  r.  Kelly.  Ikat.  4V2  ;  Kyre  t-.  Bur 
lie.^a.  inester,  10  II.  L.  '.•(». 

•  BuwcD  r.  Evons,  1  .1.  li:  L.  265. 


•  IIiiwlcv  r.  Crnnu't.  1  Cow.  717;  Green  r.  Tunncr,  8  Met.  Ill  ;  Love  r. 
Hriixton,  n  Call,  .'5:17;  Creasy  r.  I'liilips,  '2  Root,  420;  Wnmlmr/ec  r.  Ken- 
nedy, 4  Dc.Hmiu.  474  ;  Moore  r.  ('l:iy,  7  Ala.  712;  ()\vin;;s  r.  .Iiiit.  2  A.  K. 
Murab.  380;  Lcminon  r.  Ilrowii,  4   IJilih,  :J08 ;  Prevo  1.  A\iill<rs.  4  Scam. 

A  grantee  hoKiing  property  under  u  IVnudulent  <le(  il.  may  mnvty  it  so 


ON  Tin:  GROUND  OF   lUAlI).  313 

hand  file,  M\(\  witlmut  notico  of  the  iiilirinity  ol'  tin.'  title  of 
tlic  M'llt'i-,  will  l»c  jn-otc'cted  in  e(]uit_v,  a])|>li('s  ciiiimIIv  to  renl 
estate,  chattels,  and  ])ersonal  estate.^  The  rule  is.  suliject  to  no 
exceptions  even  in  favor  of  cliarities.^ 

A  })urchaser  for  valuable  consideraliun  without  notice  of 
any  defect  in  liis  title,  or  of  the  existence  of  any  ])ri()r  equitable 
incund)rance  at  the  time  when  he  advanced  his  money,  may 
buy  in  or  obtain  any  outstanding  legal  estate,  not  hehl  upon 
cxjjress  trust  for  an  adverse  claimant,  or  a  judgment,  or  any 
other  legal  advantage,  the  possession  of  which  may  be  a  pro- 
tection to  himself  or  an  embarrassment  to  other  claimants.' 

'  Joyce  w.  De  Jloloyns,  2  J.  <t  L.  377 ;  4r)R;   iVtnnndrell  ?;.  Mflundrell,  10  Ves. 

T)n\v8()n  V.  I'rinco,  2  1).  &,  J.  40;  Doikls  2J() ;  lhi>,'hcs  v.  Garner,  2  Y.  <t  C.  328; 

V.  Hills.  2   11.  A-  M.  421.     Sec  Thorn-  Cart.r  v.  Carter,  3  K.  <t  J.  017  ;    Bates 

•like  I',  lliiiit,  3  I).  <t.   J.  5G3  ;   Case   v.  v.    Jnlmson,  Johns.    30.1;     Sharple.s   v. 

James,  20  Beav.  .M2.  Adams,  32  Beav.  213;  Fag;,'  v.  James, 

'  Att.-Gen.  v.  Wilkins,  17  Beav.  203.  8  L.  T.  N.  S.  7.     See  Prosser  v.  Uice, 

•  Saunders  v.  D.l.ew,   2  Vern.  471  ;  28  Beav.  08;  Dodds  v.  Hills,  2  II.  &.  M. 

Willou-hhy   V.    Wilioutrliby,    1   T.   R.  424. 

7t'>3;   Jerrard  v.   Saunders,  2  Yes.  Jr. 


as  to  hind  the  creditors  of  the  fjrantor.  Roberts  v.  Anderson,  18  Johns. 
515;  8.  c.  3  Johns.  Ch.  371;  Ncal  r.  "Williams,  fl  Shop.  391 ;  Green  r.  Tan- 
ner, 8  Met.  411;  Coleman  v.  Cooke,  G  Rand.  618;  Bean  v.  Smith,  2  Mason, 
252;  Diigan  y.  Vattier,  3  Blackf.  245;  Cumniinirs  r.  McCullough,  5  Ala. 
324;  Boyce  r.  ^Yallcr,  2  B.  :Mon.  91 ;  Agricultural  Bank  v.  Dorsey,  1  Frecm. 
Ch.  338;  contra,  Preston  v.  Crofut,  1  Day,  527;  Read  v.  Slater,  3  Ilayw. 
159. 

A  person  ^iio  is  by  construction  turned  into  a  trustee  without  any 
knowledge  on  his  part  that  he  is  trustee,  or  of  the  facts  that  n  a'ce  him 
trustee,  may  be  a  l>oii'i  Jide  purcha.ser  of  the  share  of  another  tenant  in 
common  of  the  same  propiM-ty.     Giddings  r.  Eastman,  5  Paige,  5G1. 

The  true  question  is,  whether  the  purchaser  has  acted  in  good  faith  and 
purchased  under  circumstances  of  apparent  right  in  the  vendor  to  convey. 
A  purchase  by  way  of  a  mere  release  where,  by  reason  of  a  priority  of 
estate  between  the  parties,  it  operates  by  way  of  enlarging  the  estate  of 
the  releasee,  or  of  passing  the  estate  of  the  releasor,  may  make  a  hotid 
fide  purchaser.     Flagg  r.  Mann,  2  Sunmer,  48G. 

The  rule  of  law,  which  secures  protection  to  a  liona  jide  purchaser  who 
has  dealt  in  good  faith  with  a  fraudulent  vendee  having  the  possession, 
applies  with  equal  force  to  a  case  where  the  original  sale  and  delivery  were 
subject  to  conditions  of  which  he  is  ignorant.  Hall  r.  Hinks,  21  Md.  406;, 
contra,  Coiigill  r.  Hartford  &  New  IlaA  en  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Grav,  545. 
i>l 


-Hi  LOSS  oi'  r.iciiT  TO  riiTACii 

The  authorities  cstahlish  that  a  i»uri'hasiT  IV. "m  n  person  in 
possession,  purchasing  witliout  n(»tiec  of  any  j>iit)r  charge  or 
trust,  and  obtaining  a,  conveyance  of"  tlic  h-gal  estate  from  a 
trustee  of  a  satisfied  torin  or  mortgagee,  whose  mortgage  is 
s:itisfie<l,  will  he  protected  in  this  court  against  a  prior  incum- 
brance or  c<:sfui  que  trusty  provided  the  party  so  conveying 
the  legal  estate  has  no  notice  of  the  prior  trust  or  incund)rance. 
Ihit  it  has  never  been  dei-ided  tliat  where  the  party  so  convey- 
ing liJis  notice  of  an  express  prior  trust  or  incumbrance,  the 
purchaser  can  protect  himself  therefrom  by  means  of  the  legal 
estate.^  Althoui;h  a  man  havin*;  notice  of  an  intervening;  in- 
cumbrancc  may  get  in  any  outstanding  legal  estate,  which  a 
person  witliout  notice  of  any  intervening  iiiemnbrance  may 
honajidt  assign  to  him,  he  cannot  procure  a  conveyance  from 
a  person  who  himself  has  a  duty  to  ])erform,  and  who  by  such 
conveyance  would,  in  fact,  be  making  over  the  estate  to  protect 
the  former  against  the  very  interests  whicli  it  was  his  duty  to 
protect.*  Some  of  the  earlier  cases  on  the  subject  of  purchase 
for  value  without  notice,  have,  it  may  be  observed,  gone  to 
further  length  than  would  be  supported  by  modern  decisions.' 

The  protection  from  getting  in  the  legal  estate  extends 
even  to  cases  where  the  apparent  or  asserted  e4uital»le  title  is 
de<luced  through  a  forged  instrument ; '  jnoviiled  the  asserted 
or  apjjarent  title  of  the  party  from  whom  it  was  derived  was 
clothed  with  possession.'  If  the  asserted  or  apjjarent  title  is 
deduced  through  a  forged  instrument,  or  through  an  instru- 
ment which  has  been  obtained  liy  a  trick  or  a  cheat,  the  doc- 
trine of  j)urchase  for  value  without  notice  cannot  apply,  unless 
the  party  from  wIkum  the  title  is  deduced  had  takiii  possession, 

'  Carter  t-.  CarU-r,  U  K.   «k  J.   017,       en  r.  Kvano,  1   J.   .t   L.   2(A\  Llo3-(l  r. 

C40.  Atlwood.   H    1>.   i!L  J.    Gr>5  ;  t'oinp.   Es- 

'  Ih.  C-12.  <lnil<-  f.  \m  Nnu7.o,  1  Y.  it  (".  400. 

»  Hi.  p. n 0. /wr  WocmI,  L.  J.  ».foneM   r.    I'owlos,   3   M.  A  K.  ROfl; 

*  .loneH  f.  TowlrH.  :t   M.   «l-    K.  nwl  ;       Oirilvii;  .-.  .Ii-nirn-min,  1!  (iilF.  USO.     Sco 

I»aw»')ii  t'.  I'ri(i<'<', '.£  1>.  «i   .1.    11.  Sco       (dttatn   v.    Kll^l^■n>    Cuuu'Jca  Uaihvay 

Llojd  ♦.  J'asointjlinm,  Coop.  \'>'l ;  How-       Co.,  1  J.  il:  II.  218. 


(IN   Tin:   CltolNI)   OF   FRAUD.  31.") 

and  beiiiuj  in  ])(»ssc>si«>ii,  ;is  ;ij)]i;irciit  owner,  lia<l  sold  an<l  con- 
veyed iur  value.'  '^' 

To  raise  tlie  ciiuify  of  jnircliase  lor  value  withoiif  notice,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  j)rove  jiossession.  It  is  enoii;,di  that  the 
purchase  be  from  an  a])j)arcnt  owner  wlio  was  actually  in  pos- 
session.' If,  however,  an  instrument,  wliich  jjurports  to  con- 
vey a  legal  estate  or  interest,  be  a  forged  instrument,  no  title 
can  be  ac(^iiii-ed  under  it.  A  man  M'ho  takes  under  such  an 
instrument  has  no  title  at  all,  and  cannot  claim  as  a  purchaser 
without  notice.^  Jf  the  indorsement  on  a  bill  of  exchange  be 
forged,  it  is  the  same  as  if  there  were  no  indorsement  at  all ; 
nor  will  a  real  indorsement  by  the  payee  after  the  bill  has 
arrived  at  maturity,  give  the  holder  any  title,  if  tlie  original 
indorsement  Avas  a  forgery.* 

The  legal  estate  will  not  protect  a  purchaser  against  the 
claims  of  persons  whose  prior  right  to  its  protection  was  known 
to  him  before  completion  of  the  purchase,  even  althongli  the 
extent  of  such  claims  were  unknown;  fur  instance,  when  A, 
knowing  that  I>  h;id  a  charge  on  the  proj^erty,  accepted  a  mort- 
gage of  the  estate,  relying  on  the  mortgagor's  covenant,  and 
then  got  in  an  old  outstanding  term  of  years,  it  was  held  that 
B,  having,  in  respect  of  A's  notice  of  the  first  incumbrance,  a 
preferable  right  to  require  an  assignment  of  the  term,  was  en- 
titled to  priority  not  only  in  respect  of  such  first  incumbrance, 
but  also  in  respect  of  a  subsequent  charge  of  which  A  had  no 
notice  at  the  date  of  his  advance.' 

'  Orcilvie  V.  JcnfTreson.  2  Giff.  380.  *  Esdnilc  v.  La  Nauzp,  1  Y.  <fe  C.  3'.<0. 

MViillwynn  v.  Lee.  0  Ves.  24;  Ogil-  *  Willou^r'iby  >:  Willou^hln'.  1  T.  Jl. 

^•ie  V.  Jenih-eson,  'i  (off.  :i1'.K  703.     ISee  tjharples  v.  Acluiiis,"32  Beav. 

•  Esdnile  r.  La  N'luize,  1  Y.  &  C.  P.ito.  213. 
See  Cottani   v.  Eastern  Counties  Kail- 
way  Co.,  1  J.  <fc  IJ.  248. 


*  Case  r.  Jennings,  17  Tex,  G61 :  Brower  r.  Pcabody,  3  Kcman,  121 ; 
Caldwell  r.  Bartlett,  :j  D.icr,  341  ;  Johnson  r.  Boylcs,  2G  Alii.  570  ;  Wooster 
r.  Sherwood,  25  N.  Y.  278. 


31G  LOSS   (M'    KKillT    TO    IMl'I.ACII 

The  doctriiK'  in  icpinl  to  tlu-  rlltil  <•!'  not  ice,  dofs  imt 
afifcet  a  title  ilerivi-d  tVtua  aiiotluT  |iiTst>ii,  in  wIium'  Inuuls  it 
stood  free  tVum  any  such  taint.  A  jMirfhasir  \\  .11  \\<>\  Ik*  alVectcd 
by  notice  o(  an  et|uital)le  chiini.  if  he  j»nrcha>u  from  ii  veinh)r 
whi>  liinisclf  bought  /lomi  Jiih  without  notice.**  So,  also,  if  a 
person  who  has  notice  sells  to  aucttlur  wlio  luw  no  notice,  and 
is,  also,  &  bond  Jide  \n\r{A\,i)>{.n-  for  valiiaMc  considerati<in,  the 
latter  may  protect  his  title,  althoujjjh  it  was  atfeetcd  with  the 
ccpiity  arising  from  notice  in  the  hands  of  the  perst)n  from 
■vrhom  he  received  it.^f  A  person  atfccted  by  notice  has  the 
bcnetit  of  want  of  notice  by  intermediate  purchasers."  The 
bond  fide  purchase  of  an  estate  for  valuable  consideration, 
purges  away  the  eipiity  iVoiii  the  estate  in  the  hands  of  all  per- 
sons who  may  derive  title  under  it,  with  the  exception  of  the 
oriirinal  part}-,  who.se  conscience  stands  bound  by  the  meditated 
fraud.  If  the  estate  becomes  revested  in  him,  the  originjd 
equity  will  attach  to  it  in  his  hands.*  :J:  A  j)urcliaser,  however, 
liaving  notice,  cannot  insist  on  holding  the  legal  estate  as 
against  those  parties  with  notice,  of  whose  right  that  estate 
was  taken.'     A  man  who  has  notice  of  a  fact  which  ought  to 

'  Unrrifon  »•.  Forth,  I'rcc.  Ch.  X^\  ;   1  2  .\tk.  242;  Storv"^  Kq.  .lur.  409.    See 

Eq.  Ca.  Ab.  3:U.  j.!.  •'. ;  Luwtlier  v.  Carl-  D.kM-*  v.  Hills,  2  Ha.  .V  M.  424. 

ton,  2  Atk.   2J2;  Brainllyn  v.  Onl.  1  '  .Mcliuicn  «'.  KanjuliMr,  11  Vi-s.  4fi7. 

Alk.  571 ;  Swc-i-t  v.   Soutlicote,  2  Bro.  *  Kt-niu-il}- 1-.  Daly.  1  Scli.  ,t  Lt-f.  379; 

C.  C.   06;  Andrew   v.   Wrigley,  4    '\U.  Story's  Kn.  -Inr.  41<>:  Comp  Carter  v. 

12.1.     See  Dart,  V.  <k  P.  585.     '  Cart«r,  3   K.  it  .1.  til7;  Butea  r.  Jobn- 

"»  Ferrari*   r.  Cherry,    2  Vcrn.    384;  son.  John.  Jio'.t. 

Merlins  .•.  JoUifTe,  Anik  :n:J;   Lowther  '  AlKii  v.  Kni-ht,  .".  lln.  278. 
V.  Carllon,  Banianl,  Ch.  1558;  For.  Ib7  ; 


♦  Lacy  r.  Wilson.  4  Miint  :5i:i;  Fcnno  v.  Sayrc,  2  Ala.  4.'j8  ;  Holmes  r. 
Stout. :{  Grwn'H  C'li.  41»2;  City  Comuil  r.  Page,  Spear's  Ch.  159;  Lindsay 
r.  Rankin,  4  Hilib.  4s2;  Hmnpuss  t.  Plainer,  1  John.s.  Cli.  2l;{;  Myers  r. 
Pttk,  2  Ala.  04  M. 

t  Vttrick  r.  Brigk'".  '^  P'OKC,  223;  Tompkins  r.  Pemll,  6  Lei^'h,  570; 
Mallory  r.  Stodder,  0  Ala.  bOl  ;  Bracken  r.  Miller,  4  W.  in,  S.  102  ;  Hill  ». 
Paul.  «  Miss.  470;  Pierce  r.  Faunee,  47  .Me.  507. 

I  Fitzimmons  r.  ();^Mlen.  7  Craneli,  21S;  AIe.xander  c.  Pendleton,  8 
Criinili,  402;  Jackson  r,  Htnry.  10  Jt>lins.  185. 


ON   TIIIO   f'.KOI  NI>   OK    IKAID.  317 

liavo  j)tit  him  on  ini[iiirv.  miuI  wliidi  lie  ini^'lif  liiivc  discovered 
by  usin^  due  diligence,  caiuiut  cljiiiii  as  a  pnrcliaser  witliout 
notice.'  If  a  ])urc]iaser  clKxtscs  to  rest  satisfied  witliout  the 
knowleilge  which  he  has  a  right  to  re<|uire,  he  cannot  claim  us 
u  ]>urc]iaser  without  notice.^  Nor  can  a  M)an  who  has  by  bis 
own  act  ])rcclu(lc(l  hiniself  from  tlie  means  of  knowledge,  or 
fronj  information,  set  u})  as  against  persons  as  innocent  as  him- 
6elf,  the  want  of  information  which  he  has  precluded  bimself 
from  obtaining.'  A  purchaser,  for  examjile,  who  buys  with 
notice  of  circumstances  sufficient  to  invalidate  the  sale,  is  not 
protected  by  a  proviso  that  the  jturchaser  need  not  inquire.'* 
So,  also,  a  man  who  takes  the  assignment  of  a  lease  under  a 
condition  not  to  inquire  into  the  lessor's  title,  must  have  im- 
puted to  him  the  knowledge  which,  on  prudent  inquiry,  he 
would  have  obtained.'  Xor  are  special  conditions  of  sale,  limit- 
ing the  extent  of  title,  an  excuse  for  a  purchaser  not  insisting 
on  the  production  of  a  deed  beyond  those  limits  of  wbicli  be 
had  notice."  Trustees  of  a  settlement  for  the  benefit  of  a  par- 
ticular person,  ciinnot  stand  any  higlier  than  the  person  for 
whom  they  are  trustees  in  respect  of  notice.  If  be  is  affected 
by  notice,  they  cannot  claim  as  purchasers  for  value  without 
notice.' 

Purchasers  under  a  decree  of  the  court  take  with  notice  of 
fraud  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  decree.'  A  decree  is  no  pro- 
tection against  persons  of  whom  the  purchaser  has  actual  notice 
that  they  ouglit  to  have  been,  but  are  not,  parties  to  the  suit.' 
But  a  purchaser  under  a  decree  will  not  be  affected  by  fraud  in 

'Jackson  v.  Howe.  2  Sim.  <fe  St  475;  '  Robson  v.  Flight,  34  L.  J.  Ch.  226; 

Jones  I',   rowle-!,  S  M.  cfc  K.  590 ;  Ker  Clements  v.  Welles,  L.  II.  1  Eq.  200. 
f.  Loril  Dunyfaimon,  1  Dr.  (fc  Wur.  542;  °  Peto  t;.  Hammond,  So  Beav.  495. 

Kobinson  »■.  Hriirgs,  1   Sni.   »fc  G.  188;  '  Spaiijlit  t>.  Cowne.  1  II.  «t  M.  359. 

Davies  v.  Tliomas,  2  Y.  «fe  C.  234 ;  Jen-  '  Toulmin  v.  Steere,  3  Mer.  210;  Gore 

kins  V.  Jones.    2   Giff.  99;  O^ilvie   v.  v.  Stackpoole,  1   Dow.  30;  cit.  1  J.  <t 

Jeaffreson,  il>.  ;>7S.  L.  257. 

"  I'iirker  v.  Wbytc,  1  H.  &  M.  107.  *  Colclou-rJi  i*.  Sternm,  3  Bliirh,  181, 

'  N'ieoll's  Case,  3  D.  ct  J.  387.  180;   Tiers  v.  Piers,   1  Dr.  &  WaL  265; 

*  Jenkins  v.  Jones,  2  Gitf.  9'J.  Rolleston  t-.  Morton,  1  Dr.  «t  War.  177. 


31S  LOSS  oi  laciir  to  imtkacii 

tho  procccilinj^  of  wliich  he  himself  is  innocent/  unless  it  bo 
I'.ppartnt  on  the  face  t>f  the  decree.'  Xor  is  a  wile  impeachable 
ou  the  ^iMuml  nf  its  having  been  the  object  Ibr  \vhii'h  the  suit, 
professedly  dircetctl  to  other  purposes,  was  in  fact  instituted.' 

T(»  entitle  a  ni:in  !(•  the  i-haracter  (»f  a  bond  jide  purchaser 
without  nuticc,  he  must  have  ac(piired  the  lepd  title,  and  Lave 
actually  paid  the  purchase  money,  or  parted  with  something 
of  value  l>y  way  of  jjayment  before  receiving  notice,**  A 
ixirty  claiming  to  be  a  purchaser  lor  value  without  notice 
un<ler  a  marriage  contract,  entered  into  in  pursuance  of  arti- 
cles, uiust  show  that  he  liad  no  notice  at  the  time  of  the  settle- 
ment ;  proof  that  he  had  no  notice  at  the  time  of  the  articles  is 
not  sufficient.' t  The  protection  to  which  a  land  jide  pur- 
chaser without  notice  is  entitled,  extends  only  to  the  money 
which  has  been  actually  jiaid,  or  to  the  securities  which  have 
been  actually  appropriated  by  way  of  i)ayment  before  notice.':}: 
Notice  before   actual   payment   of  all   the   ])urchase   money, 

'  Sug.    110;    Dart,    T74;    Bowen    v.  v.  Kernan,  2  Dr.  it  War.  lU  ;  Boroll  v. 

Evaiud  J.    <t   L.  178;  '1   IF.   L.  2.'.7;  Dann.   2  Ha.  4I0;    Itayno  v.  Baker.  1 

Eilgeworth  v.   EJf^cworlli,   12  Ir.  Eq.  Gift.  215.     See  Wliitworlli  v.  (!au;,'aiii. 

81.  Cr.  it  I'll.  32.');  AU.-Ueii.  v.  Flint.  4  lln. 

•  Gore  V.  Stackpoolo,  1  Dow.  30;  cit.  147.  \:>f>. 

1  J.  <t  L.  257.  '  Daviis  v.  Thomas.  2  Y.  it  ('.  2:!4. 

»  Bowen  ».  Evans,  1  J.  it  L.  178;  2  "Story    v.    Wiii.Uor.    2    Atk.    (WO; 

II.  L.  i!57.  llardiii'/liaiii  i'.  Nielioll.^,  :{  Atk.  o04  ; 

*  How  I'.  Weldon,  2  Ves.  516;  Story  Kaync  i-.  Baker,  1  GifV.  245. 
t'.  Lord  WiudBor,  2  Atk.  C^U;  Molouy 


*  Wormloy  r.  Wnrmlcy,  8  "Whcnt.  401 ;  Bliirht  r.  Ranks,  fl  Mon.  102: 
•Tackson  r.  Sumincrvilk',  1:5  Ptim.  HoU;  Ki-itcreasc  r.  Levin,  :!(>  Miss.  TAW)  \ 
Duf;nn  r.  Vatticr,  '.\  Hlnckf.  'iJ.j ;  Wood  r.  Mann,  1  Sumner,  TjOd  ;  IJoswcll 
r.  Buchanan,  3  Lii^'li,  :J(55 ;  CJou.st  r.  Martin,  Z  S.  i.\:  H.  4:J0. 

t  V\i\\i\i  r.  Mann,  2  Sumner,  484 ;  Dupluy  r.  Frcnaj^c,  5  Stew.  &  Port. 
215 :  Inj^crson  r.  Starkweather,  Walk.  Ch.  IMO, 

♦  Jcwett  r.  Palmer,  7  .lohns.  t'h.  (J."};  Willi.ims  v.  Ilolloway,  1 
Strohh.  Eq.  103;  Blanchanl  r.  Tyler,  12  Mich.  WM);  Wells  r.  Morrow,  38 
Ala.  12."^;  Jones  r.  Head,  :J  Dana,  .'>40 ;  Pillow  r.  Shannon,  3  Yer;,'.  508; 
CurtiH  r.  Ilitclicock,  10  Paigo,  399. 

Where  the  conHMeration  tor  an  assifniiiicnt  or  transfer  from  a  fraudu- 
lent vendee  is  such  that,  after  a  redamiilion  antl  recovery  l»y  the  vendor, 
the  aMignce  or  transferee  wouhl  remain  in  the  same  coiiditinn  its  hcforo 


0\   Tin:    CIKtlNI)   OF    IMJAII).  31!) 

allli(Mii,']i  it  1)('  Hi'ciiiTil,' ■"  and  llio  execution  of  tlie  convey- 
jincc','  is  hindiiii^  in  tlie  sanio  manner  as  notic'u  liad  l)el'ore  the 
contract.  Altliniii^li,  liowcvcr,  a  purchaser  after  conveyance 
e.xec'utL'd  h.is  no  renu^dy  at  law  aj^ainst  the  paynu-nt  of  money, 
for  wliich  he  lias  i^dven  security,  he  may  come  int(»  equity  to 
have  the  money  so  secured  emi)loyed  in  discliari^e  of  newly 
discovered  incumltninces.' 

It  has  hcen  laid  that  notice  to  a  liurcliaser  after  payment 
of  the  purchase  money,  but  before  execution  of  the  convey- 
ance, is  sufficient  to  dej)rive  him  of  tlie  l)enetit  of  tlie  legal 

'  Tourvillo  V.  Naish,  3  P.  "Wm.  307;  Comp.  Cregnn  v.  CuUen,  10  Ir.  Ch.  339. 
Story  V.   Lord  Windsor,  2  Atk.  0:50 ;  'Jones  v.   Stanley.  2  Eq.    Ca.  Ab. 

Mooi-e  V.  Mavhow,  1  Cli.  Ca.  34;   liar-  085.     See  Allen  v.  Knight,  5  11a.  272, 

din!;hum  v.  'Nieliolls,  3  Alk.  304;   Til-  11  Jur.  527. 
desley    v.   Lodge,   3   Sm.    &   G.   643 ;  '  Tourville  v.  Naish,  3  P.  "Wm.  306. 

the  assifirnnuiit  or  transfer,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  make  such  an  assignment 
or  transfer  valid  against  the  clefniudetl  vendor.  Something  of  value,  in  the 
way  of  ijropcrty  or  money,  should  be  given  or  advanced  ;  some  service 
rendered  or  liability  incurred,  on  the  faith  and  credit  of  the  transfer,  and 
a.s  a  pre.sent  reciprocal  consideration  therefor.  It  follo\v.s  tliat  a  transfer  of 
property  by  a  fraudulent  vendee  in  consideration  of  a  pre-c.xisting  debt, 
confers  no  title  as  against  the  defrauded  vendor.  Katcliffe  v.  Saug.-tton,  18 
Md.  3815;  Frew  r.  Daenman,  11  Ala.  880;  Ingram  r.  Morgan,  4  Humph. 
GO;  Diekerson  v.  Tillingliast,  4  Paige,  215;  Coddington  v.  Bay,  20  Johns. 
0137 ;  Powell  r.  JetTeries,  4  Scam.  387. 

Tlie  relin(|uishmcnt  of  a  valid  security  for  a  prior  debt  is  a  sufficient 
consicleration.     Padget  v.  Lawrence,  10  Paige,  170. 

Part  cash  and  ])art  past  indebtedness  is  good  pro  tanto.  Pickett  v. 
Barron,  2'J  Barb.  505. 

If  notice  is  only  after  a  payment  of  part  of  the  jiurchasc  money,  the 
purehascr  is  entitled  to  reimi)ursement  as  a  condition  of  giving  way  to  the 
title  of  the  owner.  Lewis  v.  Beatty,  32  Miss.  52;  Goust  r.  Martin,  3 
S.  &  R.  428. 

The  payment  must  be  ])roved  by  some  other  evidence  than  the  mere 
receipt  in  the  d^cd.  Lloyd  tj.  Lynch,  28  Penn.  411);  Mitchell  r.  Pickett 
23  Tex.  573. 

*  Notice  after  payment  and  execution,  but  before  I'ccording  is  not  suffi- 
cient.    Ely  t.  Scotieid,  35  Barb.  330. 

A  purchaser  with  notice  of  a  prior  unrecordeil  conveyance  may.  never- 
theless, hold  the  legal  estate  if  he  has  the  prior  equity.  Carr  r.  Callaghan, 
3  Litt.  i]G5. 


oliO  r.nss  (ir  Kiciii    in  l^ll•:  acii 

Cf  trtto.*  *  Till'  |»'>int,  liiiWi'ViT,  is  one  Nvliirli  will  ri'[uiri'  luucli 
ronsidorntiiin  \\]n\\  it  .iriM-s  ii^ain.' 

Wlu'U  a  purcliasrr,  not  liavini;  ^ot  in  an  ontstandini^  lep:!il 
e.>tati',  lia.s  novcrthok'ss,  from  liavin^:^  a  litttcr  i-ijuit y  than  thf 
other  flaimnnts,  the  best  ri^ht  to  call  for  it,  he  will  in  i<[iiity 
be  entitled  to  its  jn-otectit)!!.^  Hut  althouirh  the  court  holds 
that  priority  Mill  .::ive  e<|uity,  yet  it  does  not  h^ld  that  it 
<;ivcs  80  superior  an  eipiity,  as  between  several  im-uinbrances 
and  j)urehasers,  as  to  enable  the  anterior  claimant  to  wrest 
the  legal  estate  from  the  jterson  who  has  obtained  it  without 
notice  of  the  anterior  claim/ 

The  defence  of  a  purchase  for  value  without  notice,  is  a 
shield  as  well  against  a  legal  title  as  an  e([uitable  title.'  Tlic 
])rinciple,  in  other  words,  applies  as  well  when  the  right 
sought  to  be  enforced  is  a  legal  right  as  when  it  is  an  equita- 
ble one.*  The  court  holds  that  it  is  not  equitable  for  a  person 
who  has  bought  for  valuable  consideration  without  notice,  to 
be  deprived  of  that  for  which  he  has  i>aid  his  money,  and  will 
not  give  any  lussistance  to  a  party  claiming  against  hini,  or  do 
anvthing  to  i)rejudice  his  right/  hut  will  leave  the  parties  t(» 
their  remedies  at  law.^  In  Williams  v.  Lamhe^^  however,  it 
was  held  by  Lord  Thurlow  that  the  defence  of  purchase  for 
value  without  notice  could  not  be  pleaded  in  bar  to  a  suit  for 
an  account  of  dower,  which  a  widow  having  a  legal  title 
BOUijht  to  eiifnrce  ;  and  in  ^ 'r>////<,v  v.  vl/v/^;','"  it  was  held  by 
Sir.  J.  Li'ach,  M.  K.,  that  it  was  no  answer  t<t  a  bill  for  tithes. 

'  Wi^'i,'  f.  WiL'tr.  1  Atk.  382.  »  Joyce  v.  I).'  Mdlcyns.  2  J.  A  L.  377 . 

*  Durt,  V.  »t  r.  :<lo.  Att.-(;i'n.  v.  Wilkin^,"  17  .lU-ov.  2'J3, 
»  WilloUKhby  r.  Willou}rl)l)y.  1  T.  R.  "  lb. 

7C« ;   Bowi'ii  V.  Kvnnx,  1  .1.  «t    L.  2t'..'i;  '  Wahvvnn  »•.  L<m',  It  Viw.  'ji;  J,iyco 

I'nrkcr  r.  Cartt-r,  »   Ila.  ni>;   Dart,  V.  ••.  Dc   .MdIi-vux.   2  J.   it   I,.   :i74  ;  Att.- 

^  \\  r>41.  (Jeii.  f.  Wilkiiis.  17  Hcnv.  292. 

*  UooiKT  ».  Ilttrri^jn,  1  K.   it  .1.  li)8,  '  Att.-Ccn.  i-.  Wilkiiis.  17  Beav   292. 
.09  •  :*  l<r<>.  (',«'.  2<.l 

*  1  U.  it  M.  2tJ  J. 


♦  PealxMly  r.  Fcnt(»n,  :{  BurlK  C'li.  \')\. 


OS    Tin:   (MiOlNl)   Ol'   FKAUD  .'iL'l 

The  doctrine  of  tlicsu  cases,  thou;,'Ii  disapproved  of  and  op- 
]»(»s('(l  to  iiiaiiy  recent  decisions,'  has  been  aj)j)roved  of  by 
J.onl  Wcsthurv,  in  /*/ii7ij)jhi  v,  Philijfps}  But  Lord  St. 
]x>onar(ls^  docs  not  a]»i)rove  of  tlie  reasoning  of  Lord  AVestlniry 
in  that  case,  and  is  of  opinion  that  those  cases  were  not  cor- 
rectly decided. 

The  defence  of  purchase  for  vahiablc  consideration  -without 
notice,  will  not  prevent  the  court  from  protecting  property  by 
injunctinii,  pending  litigation.* 

Questions  relating  to  the  defence  of  purchase  for  valuable 
consideration  without  notice,  are  much  modified  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  act  for  rendering  unnecessary  the  assignment  of 
satisfied  terms.  If  the  term  is  gone,  it  will  not  stand  iu  the 
way  of  the  petitioner  even  at  law.' 

As  between  persons  claiming  merely  equitable  interests, 
the  defence  of  purchase  for  value  without  notice  has  no  place. 
A  party  who  purchases  an  equity  takes  it  subject  to  all  the 
equities  which  affect  it  in  the  hands  of  the  assignor.  The 
first  grantee  of  an  equity  has  the  right  to  be  paid  first,  and  it 
is  quite  immaterial  whether  the  subsequent  incumbrancers  had 
at  the  time  they  took  their  securities  and  paid  their  money, 
notice  of  a  prior  incumbrance.^  "' 

'  See  Payne  v.  Compton,  2  Y.  &  C.  670;  Rooper  v.  Harrison,  2  K.  <t  J.  lOS, 

461;   Bowon    v.   Kvans;,    1   J.  <fc  L.  178,  lU'.t ;    Ford   v.   White,    16    Beav.    120; 

264;  Jovc"  V.  l)e  Molevns,  2  J.  &  L.  Stackiiouse  r.  Cuuntess  of  Jersey.  1  J. 

374;  Att.-Gen.   v.   Wilkins,    17    Beav.  cfc  H.  721;  Case  v.  Jam.s.  8  D.  F.  A-  J. 

2S5;    Fincli   v.    Sliaw,    1'.)   Beav.   509;  264;   I'ariver   v.  Clarke,  30   beav.    51; 

Lane  tv  Jackson,  2it  Beav.  535.  Cory  v.  Eyre,  1  D.  J.  tt  S.  167  ;  Piiilipi>.s 

«  31  L.  J.  eh.  321.  326  v.  IMiilipp's,  31  L.  J.  Cli.  321,  326.    See 

'  Su<j.  V.  it  P.  7'.iO,  7'.M).  Liebnian  v.  Harcourt,  2  .Mer.  520  ;  Rice 

*  Oreenslade  v.  I  (are,  17  Beav.  502.  v.  Rice,  2  Drew.  73  ;   Evre  v.  Burnies- 

'  Finch    V.    Finch.    10    Beav.    500;  ter,  lo   II.  L. 'JO ;  Dmlds  i;.  Hills,  2  II. 

("orry  c  Crcmorne,  12  Ir.  Cli.  136.  ik.  M.  424;  Comp.  Lane  i'.  Jackson,  20 

°  Frazcr   v.  Jones,  17  L.  J.  Cli.  353,  Beav.  539. 

356;  Manningford  v.  Toleman,  1  ColL 


*  Poillon  r.  Martin,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  560;  Crawford  r.  Bcctbolf,  Saxton, 
458;  Jones  r.  Zollicofier,  2  Taylor,  214;  Piuson  p.  Ivey,  1  Yerg.  iiW;  Du- 
pont  V.  Wetbcnnan,  10  Cal.  35-4. 


322 


LOSS   OF    IMdIir    TO    IMl'l'.Ani 


^Vlioro  a  ]':irty  li;i>  imtliiiii;  iintrf  than  an  ('nuitalilo  in- 
terest, another  j):irty  who  lias  a  piini*  i<|iiitalili'  interest  will 
generally  be  pret'errt'd,  the  f^enera!  rule  luini;  that,  as  between 
equities,  he  who  is  prior  in  point  of  tinio  is  prior  in  jtoint  of 
right.*  The  maxim,  qui  prittr  est  tcniporc  jnttun'  (sf  Jure, 
always  applies  between  eipiities,  unless  there  be  something  to 
take  the  parties  out  of  the  general  rule*  -  Tho  fac-t  that  the 
owner  of  the  equitable  interest  who  sets  ujt  the  defence  of 
purchase  without  notice,  may  be  in  possession,  and  has  a  right 
to  call  for  the  legal  estate,  does  not  vary  the  rulc.^  The 
assignee  of  a  chose  in  action  not  assignable  at  law,  cannot  set 
up  the  defence  of  purchase  for  value  without  notice  as  against 
equities  which  attached  to  the  security  in  the  hands  of  tho 
assignor.*  The  person  liable  to  the  demand  may  so  act  as 
to  create  against  himself  an  e<piity  preventing  the  applica- 
tion of  the  rule.  There  may  be  such  dealings  between  the 
assi'Miec  and  the  partv  liable  orii;inallv  as  to  itivclude  him 
from  insisting  as  against  the  assignee  upon  rights  which  ho 
might  have  claimed  as  against  the  assignor ;  but,  as  a  general 
rule,  a  person  who  buys  a  chose  in  action,  which  can  oidy  bo 
put  in  suit  in  the  name  of  the  original  holder,  takes  subject  to 
tho  equities  which  ailV-ct  the  assignor,  even  although  he  bo  a 
bond  fde  j)urchaser  without  notice."  AVhcre,  accordingly,  a 
man  boui;ht  in  the  market,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business, 
debentures  which  had  been  issued  in  fraud  of  a  company,  tho 

•  Att-Gf-n.  r.  Flint,  4  Ha.  15(1.  103;   Morri.s  v.  Livio.   1  Y.  «fe  ('.  C.  0. 

•  Frazer   v.  .Ioik-*.  17   L.  J.  Cli.  355;  3S0;   Smith   v.   rark.s,    Id   Hcav.    115; 
liice  V.  Uioe,  '1  I»i<w.  7H.  Clnck  r.  HDUiiml.  ]'.»  Iti-av.  'HVl;  Stnck- 

•  I'bUil<pn  V.  l'iiilii>i.rt,  31    L.  J.  Cli.  liou.tc'i'.  Coiiiifiss  <.f  .hrscy.  1  J.  it  H. 
321.  7'^1 ;  AtliiMiii'Uiii  I.ifi'  A H.suraiice  Society 

•  Coles  V.  Jones.  '1  Vcrn.  «92  ;  Turtoii  r.  I'uolfy.  :i  l>.  «t  •'.  '.i'.'l. 

!•.    IJcii.Hon,    1    r.  WiiH.    •»".»»>;   Tutor   t;.  *  How  r.  Wcliloii.  2  Yes.  51»1;  Cock- 

Iturkf,   1    Hro.  ('.   ('.    431;    I'riilily    i'.  oil  f.  Taylor.  15  llonv.  1 03;  yMliciia«uiii 

Il<)*<-,  3  Mer.  Mft;    Muii[;l(.>rt   i'.  Dixon.  3  Lifo  AHsurancu  Sucioty  v.  I'oolcy,  8  D. 

H.  L.  7<)'2;  Cockcll  v.  Tiiylor,  15  Ik-av.  &  J.  'l'J\. 

"  Ilalctt  e.  Collins,  10  How.  174;  Boono  c.  Cliilcn,  10  Pet.  177;  Gnllion, 
r.  MrCuHlin,  1  Bliukf.  l'.»l  ;  Craig  c.  Lciper,  3  Ycrg.  10:1;  Nai)iiT  r.  Kluin, 
«  Ycrg.  10». 


ON  Tin;  cKoiNi)  oi'  imjaii*.  32'> 

facttliiit  the  truiistcr  of  the  dcbontures  liad  haon  rc^i.storod  in 
the  hooks  of  the  comiumy,  aiid  interest  luid  hueii  paid  on 
tliem,  and  that  the  holder  was  a  lotid  fi(h  piircliaser  without 
notice,  was  heUl  not  to  aft'ect  tlie  application  of  the  rule,  and 
tlie  lioldcr  of  thciii  was  restrained  from  suing  at  law  upon 
tlu'Hi.'  The  niK'  tliat  a  man  who  ])urcliases  a  chose  in  action 
takes  it  subject  to  the  equities,  wliich  attacli  to  it  in  th(;  hands 
of  the  assignor,  applies  even  wlierc  tlie  i)erson  himself  who 
asserts  the  ecpiity  has  created  the  interest  under  wdiich  the 
assignee  claims  it.^  AVhere,  accordingly,  A  mortgaged  a  iund 
in  court  to  B,  and  afterwards  joinutl  W  in  a  sul)-mortgage  to 
C  ,  and  it  was  decided  that  the  mortgage  to  B  was  fraudulent 
and  void,  it  was  held  void  as  to  C  ,  and  that  neither  A  's  con- 
currence in  the  first  or  second  mortgage  prevented  him  from 
insisting  on  the  invalidity  of  the  transaction,  he  not  being 
aware  of  his  rights.'' 

The  rule  that  a  hond,  fide  purchaser,  without  notice,  may 
buy  in,  or  obtain  for  his  protection  against  other  claimants,  an 
outstanding  legal  estate,  or  other  legal  advantage,  is  the 
foundation  of  the  equitable  doctrine  of  tacking,  as  it  is  tech- 
nically called,  that  is,  uniting  securities  given  at  different 
times,  so  as  to  prevent  any  intermediate  purchaser  from  claim- 
ing a  title  to  redeem,  or  otherwise  to  discharge  one  lien  which 
is  prior  in  date,  without  redeeming  or  discharging  the  other 
liens  also  which  are  subsequent  to  his  own  title/  *     Thus,  if  a 

'  Ih.     Comp.  Thormlike   r.   Hunt,  3  ris  v.  Livic,  1  Y.  <fe  C.  C.  C.  380;    Rnr- 

D.  <L'  J.  508;   Ashwin  v.  Burton,  'J  Jur.  nett  v.  ShefficUl,  1  D.  M.  <fc  G.  371  ; 

N.  S.  319;    Ilulctt's  Case,   2  J.  <t  II.  Stnckhouse  v.  Countess  of  Jersey,  1  J. 

800;    WooiUiaiiis  v.  Ani^lo-Aiistraliim,  it  II.  721. 

d'C.  Co.,  3  Giff.  238.  2  I>.  .1.  it  S.  IC.s ;  ^  Cockell  v.  Taylor,  15  Bcav.  119. 

Doclilsi.  Hills,  211.  ct-M.  421.  See  also  ^  Ih.  103. 

rinketti'.  Wriiclit,  2ll:i.  137.S  C.  onap-  •Jeremy's  Eq.   Jur.   b.  I,   c.  ii,  ,^  1  ; 

leal ;  Murray  v.  I'inkett,  12  CI.  «fc  Fin.  Story's  Eq.  Jur.  412. 


peal ;   .> 
780;  M 


oore  V.  Jervis,  2  Coll.  60 ;  Mor- 


*Tlie  doctrine  of  tackinji  is  never  allowed  aprainst  incumbrances  which 
are  recorded.  Averill  r.  Guthrie,  S  Dana,  82;  Oiboru  r.  Carr,  13  Ct.  196; 
St.  Andrew's  Church  v.  Tomkins,  7  Joh.s.  Cj.  1-1. 


;:jt  ki:mi:i)ii:s. 

tliinl  mort,<;ni;pi\  without  notii-o  (.f  a  socoiul  mortirnijoe  at  the 
time  when  he  h-iit  his  iiioiu-v,  shniihl  |.nrch;iM'  in  llie  tirst 
lUort<^<;e,  h.v  which  he  Wculd  ac'iuire  the  \v<j;:i\  titk*,  the 
second  niorti^Mj^ee  cannot  redeem  the  lirst  morti^'a^^'c  without 
redeeming:  the  tliird  nu>rt<j:a;,'e  also.  It  is  iinnialorial  that  the 
thirtl  inort-^'a-^ee  may  have  had  notice  of  the  second  mort^rage 
at  the  time  of  purchasini,'  in  the  iirst  mort<;agc,  provided  he 
liad  no  sueh  notice  at  tlie  time  lie  advanced  Lis  money.^  Hie 
ahsence  of  notice  at  the  time  of  the  advance  is  the  ground  of 
the  equity.'  The  legal  estate,  accordingly,  of  the  lirst  mort- 
gagee will  not  protect  subsequent  interests  purchased  witli 
notice  of  mes?u'  incumliranees.  A  man  purchasing  an  equity 
».f  redemption,  cannot  set  up  a  prior  mortgage  of  his  own,  or  a 
mortgage  which  he  has  got  in  against  subsequent  incumbrances 
of  which  he  had  notice.' 


SECTION    VII.— K EM i: DIES. 

REMEDIES  AT  LAW. 

An  action  on  the  case  for  damages  in  the  nature  of  a  writ 
of  deceit,  lies  at  law  against  a  man  f..r  making  a  false  and 
fraudulent  representation,  whereby  another  is  induced  to  enter 
into  a  transaction,  and  by  so  doing  sustains  damage.*  *  If  the 
representation  be  false,  it  is  immaterial  that  it  may  have  been 
made  without  any   frau<lulent   intent,  or  that    tiie   party  who 

•  Marcli  f.  Loo,  1  Cli.  fa.  K,2;  Mor-  »  Tirnro  >■.  Diichcs  of  .Marlborough.  2 

rctt f.    l'ii-k<'.   2  .\tk.  :>•>;  Wortlcy   »'.  1*.  Wins.  4'.il  ;  llopkinson  v.  Uolt,  U  U. 

r.irklun'l,  'J  Ve*.   r>71  ;   I^accy  i'.  Incio,  L.  Ml. 

2  I'll.  4iy  ;  K'xtl>er  v.  llnrriHon.  2  IC.  A  '  Toulmin  v.  Stocrc.  .T  Mcr.  221. 

.l  Kt);  Bat<-H  V.  Ji.liiiHon,  .l»lm.  HO  J.  Soo  *  Piwley  v.  Freeuiuii,  3T.  11.  62,  siipra, 

Lloyd  ».  Attwood,  »  U  ct  J.  fiH.  p.  03. 


♦  Younff  V.  Hull,  4  Geo.  95  ;  Irwin  r.  Phcrrill,  1  Taylor.  1 ;  Pritton  r. 
Oumov,  i:i  MftSH.  1N2:  Wfathcrford  v.  Fishback,  '.)  Scam.  170;  Kcniiuore 
c.  United  States,  :j  Dullua,  y57. 


ki:m  101)1  i:s.  3'J.") 

mkkIc  if  iiiav  liuvo  derive*!  no  benefit  from  it.**  The  {.riiiciplc 
of  l:i\v  i>,  lli.it  i'vaud  accoMi]):inie(l  by  daiiiai^e  is  in  all  cases  ft 
good  cause  of  action.'-  A  rc])r('sentati(jn,  hou'evcr,  lionestly 
believed  to  be  true  by  tlie  i)arty  luakinf^  it,  is  not,  indciieu- 
dentlv  of  a  <bity  cast  on  biiii  to  kii(»\v  the  truth,  a  <^ood  cause 
of  action,  althou<;li  it  may  prove  to  be  untrue.^  f 

If   tlic    transacti(.n    be  a  contract,   the   rule   of   law   with 

»  Polliill  V.   Wnltcr,  :{  15.  <t  A.    114  ;       liill  v.  Wnltor,  :j  K  A-  A.  114;  Foster  «•. 
Foster  v.   Clmrlis,  7  Biu;;,  InO,  snpra,       C'liarlc-i.  7  I'-iiiL,'.  n>'">. 
j,p   65   5C,  Mlavcrftft    >:    IrLHsy.    2    EnRt.   92; 

»  I'asley  i-.  Freeman.  .3  T.  R.  52 ;  Fol-       TIkmii  r.  IM-rlnnd,  s  Exeli.  726 ;  Ormrod 

1'.  Ilulh,  14  M.  &  W.  051. 


*  Smith  r.  ]\Iit(lull,  0  Gfo.  458  ;  Stiles  v.  White,  It  Met.  350;  Young 
r.  Hull,  4  Goo.  1)5;  Unit  r.  Talmadge,  2  Day,  381;  Clopton  r.  Co<,'art,  13 
Smed.  &  Mar.  303;  Collin-?  r.  Dcnnison,  12  Met.  543;  West  r.  Kmcry, 
17  Vt.  583  ;  Boyd  v.  Browu,  6  Barr,  310;  Munson  v.  Gairduer,  3  Brevard, 
31. 

t  Boyd  V.  Brown,  0  BaiT,  31 G  ;  Weeks  v.  Burton,  7  Vt.  67 ;  Young  v. 
Covell,  8  John."?.  25;  Stone  r.  Denny,  4  Met.  151  ;  Tryon  v.  Whitmarsh,  1 
Met.  1  ;  Rusi^ell  c.  Clark,  7  Crancli,  G2. 

Fraud  and  injury  must  concur  to  t'uniish  ground  lor  judicial  action.  A 
mere  fraudulent  intent,  unaccompanied  by  any  injurious  act,  is  not  the 
subject  of  judicial  cognizance.  Clark  v.  White,  12  Pet.  178;  G arrow  ©. 
Davis,  15  How.  272;  Morgan  v.  Bliss,  2  Mass.  Ill;  Farrar  c.  Alston,  1 
Dev.  09. 

If  a  claim  is  niadr  for  fraud,  the  representations  must  not  only  l)e  false, 
but  false  to  the  knowledge  of  the  party  making  them.  :Marshall  r.  Gray, 
57  Barb.  414;  Pettigrew  r.  Chcllis,  41  N.  II.  95;  Staines  v.  Shore,  10  Pcnn, 
200 ;  Bendurant  v.  Crawford,  22  Iowa,  40  ;  Morton  r.  Scull,  23  Ark.  289  ; 
King  r.  Eagle,  10  Allen.  54S ;  Taylor  r.  Frost,  39  Mi^s.  528  ;  Allen  r.  Wanu- 
maker,  2  Vroom,  370  ;  Bond  v.  Clark,  35  Vt.  577 ;  Zehncr  r.  Kipler,  10  Ind. 
290  ;  Peers  r.  Davis,  29  Mo.  184  ;  Holmes  r.  Clark,  10  Iowa,  423. 

If  a  person,  with  intent  to  deceive  and  defraud,  asserts  a  fact  as  exist- 
ing of  his  own  knowledge,  when  he  has  no  knowledge  upon  the  subject, 
he  is  lial)le  to  the  party  injured  for  the  falsehood.  In  that  case,  there  is 
guilty  knowledge,  for  he  claims  to  know,  and  asserts  what  he  docs  not 
know.  Atwood  r.  Wright,  29  Ala.  340  ;  Bennett  v.  Judson.  21  X.  Y.  233 ; 
Craig  V.  Ward,  30  Barb.  377  ;  Sharp  r.  New  York,  40  Barb.  250. 

An  action  may  be  sustained  for  a  misrepresentation  by  which  a  crcdiia- 
has  l)een  induced  to  allow  the  Statute  of  Limitations  to  bar  his  claim. 
^Carshall  r.  Buchanan,  35  Cal.  204. 

In  cases  of  fraud,  it  is  immaterial  whether  any  or  what  covenants  aro 


32G  in:Mi:i»ir.s. 

respect  t(»  false  au«l  iVauduli'iit  ivjuvrJciitation  a])])lies,  notwitli- 
Btaiulin:;  the  cttiitraot  may  Ikim-  hicii  in  wiitiiiLT,  :inil  iiutwitb- 
BtaiuliiiLr  the  ri'])rr>L'iitations,  may  \>v  ii«)  i>arf  ft"  the  terms  of 
the  written  cctiitraet.' 

To  found  an  action  of  deceit,  the  fraud  must  ho  a  j>cr.sonal  one 
on  tlie  ]):irt  of  tlic  person  makiiii:  tlie  representation,  or  some 
fraud  whieli  anuthcr  person  has  impliedly  authorized  him  to  be 
guilty  of.  An  action  of  deceit  cannot  be  brou;;ht  against  a 
principal  for  the  fraudulent  representations  of  his  a;;ent,  unless 
lie  has  impliedly  authorized  liim  to  make  the  representations.' 
An  incoii^orated  company  cannot,  therefore,  in  its  corporate 
capacity,  be  called  upon  to  answer  in  an  action  of  deceit  for 
false  rcjircsentations  made  by  its  directors,  unless  they  have 
authorized  the  representations.  The  company  cannot  be  sued 
as  wrong-doers  by  imputing  to  them  the  misconduct  of  those 
whom  they  have  employed.  An  aetioii  of  deceit  may  bo 
maintained  against  the  directors  personally  ;  but  not  against 
the  company.' 

A  purchaser  may,  after  conveyance,  l)ring  an  action  in  the 
case  for  a  fraudulent   misrepresentation  of  the  property,*  *  or 

'  Attwood   V.   Small,    You.    In?,  per  L.  11.  1,  Sc.  .Ap]).  ("n.  ir.'2;   Ilondcrson 

Lord  Lynilliurst.  v.  l.ncon.  L.  H.  .'>,  Kq.  'JOJ. 

»  New    Brunswick    «tc.    lUilwny    f.  *  Dobill   v.   Stivens,   .'{  U.  «t  C.  623 ; 

Conybcnrc,  9  II.  L.  711  ;  Henderson  v.  Mnniinery  v.  I'liul.   1  C.  h.  31t'. ;  FiilliT 

Lacon,  L.  II.  n,  Eq.  202.  r.  Wildon,   3  Q.  K  r.H,  OS;  Girhnrd  v. 

*  Wffltfrn  Bank  of  Scotland  v.  Addic,  Bates,  2  E.  d:  B.  -ITC. 


contained  in  the  dccil.  Wanlcll  r.  Fosdick,  13  Johns.  32.1;  Shacklcford  r. 
Handy,  1  -\.  K.  .Marsh.  10");  Hostwick  r.  L«\vi.-i,  1  Day,  'JoO ;  Cravens  f. 
Grant,  2  Men.  117  :  h.  c.  1  .Mon.  12(i. 

The  Hinjple  fact  of  making'  representations  in  rcf^anl  to  tho  credit  of 
another,  which  turn  cmt  t<»  Iju  untrue,  uncounectc<I  with  a  iVauthilcnt  design, 
is  not  BUflicicnt  to  support  an  action.  Lord  r.  Goihhird,  13  How.  108; 
Lord  r.  Colley,  0  N.  II.  ttU;  Youn-,'  r.  Covcll,  H  Joliiis.  2*);  Williams  r. 
Wood,  14  Johns.  12(5 ;  Fookn  r.  Waple.'^,  1  Harrinp.  131;  Hopper  e  Lisk, 
1  Smith,  102;  Uptoti  r.  Vail,  G  Johns.  IHI  ;  Allen  r.  Adilin^rton,  T 
Wend.  1. 

♦  .Maliory  r.  Ix-ach,  35  Vt.  lid  ;  Kelly  r.  Pember,  35  Vt.  183  ;  Ciifford  r. 
Can-ill,  20  Cal.  583;  Love  r.  Oldham,  22  Ind.  51. 


REMEDIES.  Ii27 

the  title;*  or  may  recover  tlie  piircliase-money,  if  tlic  circ-um- 
stanees  of  tlic  ease  entitle  him  to  rescind  the  contract.** 

•  Pillmoro  v.  I  loo  J,  5  Bing.  N.  C.  97.  '  Early  v.  Garrett,  4  XI.  A  II.  667.  Sco 

Dart,  V.  «fe  P.  612-GI4. 


*  Pcnrsoll  V.  Clinpin,  41  Pcnn.  9  ;  Sliacklefonl  r.  IIan<ly,  1  A.  K.  Marsh. 
405. 

Fmiul  in  a  contract  is  no  bar  to  an  action  upon  a  contract,  unless  there 
is  a  rescission  or  oiler  to  rescind  the  contract  within  a  reasonable  time  after 
the  «li3covcry  of  the  fraud.  Benton  r.  Stewart,  3  Wend.  230;  Bain  r. 
Wilson,  1  J.  J.  Marsh.  202. 

The  defendant  in  case  of  fraud  is  entilleil  to  a  deduction  of  an  amount 
equal  to  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  property,  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  its  corresponding  with  the  representations  and  its  real  value. 
Ward  V.  Reynolds,  32  Ala.  384;  Hinckley  v.  Ilendrickson,  5  McLean,  170; 
Blsehof  «.  Lucas,  G  Ind.  2G  ;  Smith  v.  Smith,  30  Vt.l39;  Weinier  r.  Clem- 
ent, 37  Penn.  147;  Cecil  r.  Spurger,  32  Mo.  4G2;  Iluckabee  r.  Ilutter,  10 
Ala.  G.j7;  Groff  r.  Hansel,  33  Md.  IGl ;  Withers  v.  Greene,  9  How.  230; 
Berker  r.  Yrooman,  13  Johns.  302;  Spalding  v.  Vandercook,  2  Wend.  432. 

In  an  action  of  ejectment,  replevin,  trover,  assumpsit,  or  other  forms 
of  action,  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  back  anything,  as  on  the  rescission 
of  a  contract,  the  very  first  thing  to  be  done,  after  showing  that  the  plaintiff 
parted  with  the  thing  in  pursuance  of  the  contract  alleged,  is  to  show  that 
the  plaintilfhas  rescinded  the  contract  by  doing,  or  offering  to  do,  all  that 
is  necessary  and  reasonably  possible  to  restore  the  parties  to  the  condition 
in  which  they  were  before  the  contract,  and  thus  to  show  tiiat  he  had  good 
ground  to  rescind  it.  Pearsoll  v.  Chapin,  44  Penn.  9;  Butter  r.  Blake,  2 
H.  &  J.  353 ;  Norton  v.  Young,  3  Grcenl.  30  ;  Sanborn  r.  Osgood,  IC  N.  H. 
112 ;  Weeks  v.  Robie,  42  N.  H.  31G  ;  Gulth  r.  White,  35  Barb.  7G  ;  Wasson 
T.  Bovct,  1  Denio,  GO  ;  Thayer  i\  Turner,  8  Met.  552 ;  Ball  r.  Lively,  4  Dana, 
371 ;  Kinney  r.  Kieruian,  2  Lr.ns.  4G. 

If  the  tiling  the  consideration  of  which  is  sought  to  be  recovered  is 
entirely  worthless,  there  need  be  no  tender  of  a  return.  Whenever  the 
question  of  restoration  arises,  it  is  an  equitable  question,  and  is  to  be  dealt 
with  on  equitable  principles.  Balicock  r.  Case,  Gl  Penn.  427;  ^lahone  r. 
Beeves,  11  AJa.  345;  Smith  r.  Smith,  30  Vt.  139;  Phelan  v.  Crosby,  2  Gill. 
402. 

A  party  can  not  excuse  an  omission  to  return  the  note  of  a  third  person 
by  offering  to  prove  that  the  maker  is  insolvent,  and  the  note  on  that 
account  worthless.  Cook  v.  Gilman,  34  N,  II.  55G  ;  Gushing  r.  Wyman,  38 
Me.  589  ;  Baker  r.  Bobbins,  2  Denio,  13G. 

Leaving  a  deed  of  reconveyance  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  in  which  an 
action  is  pending,  upon  the  note  given  as  the  consideration  for  the 
property,  is  a  sufficient  restoration.  Concord  Bank  r.  Gregg,  14  N.  H. 
331. 


;;JS  RKMKDIES. 

If  n  c<mtract  ft»r  tlio  sale  or  luirdinsc  of  floods  or  chattels  be 
induced  Ity  false  and  iVaudiiKnl  ici»rcsentations  un  tlio  |>art  of 
the  other  j>;irty  t«t  the  contract,  tin-  |i;uty  (IcrraiuliMl  may 
rescind  or  avoid  the  c»»ntract,  and  recover  itack  what  lie  iiaa 
paid  or  sold,*  unless  he  has,  after  discovery  of  the  fraud,  acted 
upon  and  treated  tiie  contract  as  binding.''  The  ri<,dit  to 
rescind  is  not  afterwards  revived  by  the  discovery  (»f  another 
incident  in  tlie  same  frand.^  Nor  can  a  contract  be  rescinded 
if  the  circumstances  have  in  the  meantime  so  far  chanired  that 
the  parties  cannot  be   restored  to  the  position  in  which  they 

'  Gompcrtz  V.  Denton,  1  Cr.  <k  M.  -^uT;  "  Campbell  v.  Fleming.  1  A.  A  E.  40; 

Load  V.  Green,  15  M.  &.  W.  2Jit.  Sthvay  v.  Fogg,  5  il.  «k  W.  86. 

*  10. 


If  the  vendor  hns  taken  the  vendee's  own  notes,  an  ofTerto  ntiini  them 
at  the  trial  is  sufliciont.  They  need  not  be  surrendered  lui'ore  bringing 
suit.  Thurston  r.  IManchiird,  22  Pick.  18;  Coghill  r.  Borinii,  15  Cul.  'M3; 
Duval  r.  Mowr}-,  fi  R.  I.  471) ;  Nichols  r.  Michaels,  23  N.  Y.  2(54  ;  Annstrong 
r.  Tufts,  G  Barb.  432  ;  Kcutgcn  r.  Parks  2  Sandf.  00;  Ilathorn  r.  lIodi,'e3, 
28N.  Y.  480;  Armstrong  r.  Cushinjr,  43  Harl).  350;  White  r.  Dodd^  18 
Abb.  250;  Stevens  r.  Hyde,  32  Barb.   171  ;  Pcqueno  r.  Taylor,  3a  IJarl> 

375. 

In  case  of  a  pale  on  credit,  if  there  is  any  fraud  on  thi-  |)art  of  the 
purchaser,  which  avoids  the  special  contract,  the  vendor  n>ay  disregard 
the  terms  of  credit,  and  liring  an  action  immediately  for  the  goods  Bank 
r.  Core,  15  Mass.  79;  Wilson  r.  Fovet,  0  Johns.  110;  Both  r.  Palmer.  27 
Barb.  052  ;  Kayser  r.  Sichel,  34  Barb.  84  ;  French  r.  White,  5  Dutr,  250  ; 
Blii*s  c.  Cottle,  32  Barb.  322  ;  Wigand  t>.  Sichel,  3  Kcyes,  120. 

A  fraudulent  rei>resentation  of  the  quality  and  value  of  the  thing  sold 
fc.nuB  no  defense  in  a  suit  on  a  specialty.  Tlie  fraud  that  may  b<'  given 
in  evidenee.  under  the  i»lea  of  mm  cd  furdnn,  must  be  coiilined  to  fraud 
that  relates  to  the  execution  of  the  instrument;  as,  if  a  deed  Im"  fraud- 
ulently misread,  and  is  executed  under  that  imjjosition,  or  where  there  is 
a  fraudulent  substitution  of  one  deed  for  another,  and  the  |)arly"s  signa- 
ture is  obtJiine<l  to  a  <leed  which  lie  did  not  intend  to  exeeute.  Dorr  r, 
Munsdl,  13  Johns.  430;  Franchot  r.  Leaeh,  5  Cow.  500;  Champi«m  r. 
Wiiite,  5  Cow.  509;  Burrows  r.  Alter,  7  Mo.  424  ;  Mordeei>i  i.  Tankersley, 
1  Ala.  100;  Anderson  r.  Jolmson,  3  Sandf  1  ;  MeKnight  r.  KeHett,  9  Geo. 
532;  IIollv  r.  Young,  27  Ala.  203.  Contrti,  lla/.ard  r  Irwin,  IS  Pick.  05; 
Iloitt  I.  Iloleomb,  23  N.  II.  535;  Ilerrin  r.  Libbey,  30  Me.  :!5(). 

Where  the  deft nsf  set  Up  is  frautl  in  the  rontrnct  of  Mile,  nput  from 
nnv  defect  of  title,  and  indei)endent  of  it.  the  defense  may  be  made  to  an 


TiKMr.niRa.  329 

btood  la'fure  or  at  tlu;  tiim- of  the  ciuitract.' *  The  ofTuot  of 
tlic  uvoidiiiict!  ol"  ail  ai^nvoiiieiit  on  the  irrniiiiil  of  iVaiiil,  is  tu 
[)hu-e  the  parlii's  in  (he  siiine  })ositiuii  as  if  it  had  never  been 
made;  and  all  rights  ^vhich  are  transferred  or  created  hy  the 
acfrecinent,  are  revested  or  diticliar^ed  hv  the  avoidance.  If, 
wlien  it  is  a\nided,  nothing;  has  oecun'ed  lo  alter  the  position 
of  affairs,  the  rii^hts  antl  remedies  of  the  j)ai"ties  are  the  same, 
as  if  it  iiad  been  Noid  from  tlie  l)e<j^innin<^  ;  but  if  any  altera- 
tion lias  taken  ])iaee,  their  ri<^hts  and  remedies  are  subject  to 
the  ettect  of  that  alteration."  A  contract,  tliouj^h  induced  by 
fraud,  eannot  be  avoided,  if  the  rii,dits  of  an  innocent  vendee 
have  in  the  meantime  intoi'vened.^  If  before  disaffirmance, 
the  goods  or  chattels  have  been  resold  or  transferred,  cither  in 
whole  or  in  part,  to  an  innocent  vendee,  the  title  of  such 
vendee  is  good  against  the  original  vendor."*  So,  also,  where 
a  negotiable  instrument  is  obtained  by  fraud,  the  negotiation 
of  the  instrument  gives  a  valid  title  to  a  transferee,  who  takes 


'Clarke  v.  Dickson,    Kl.  Bl.   &  El.  =  .sWa,  pp.  ^9,  312. 

148.  *  Wliite    i:    Gank-n,    10  C.  B.    919; 

"  Qncen  r. Saddlers'  Co.,  In  H.  L.  IJO,  Kin2:sforJ  v.  Merry,  11  Exch.  C79, 1 II. 

per  Blackburn,  J.     See  Feret  v.  Hill,  lo  «k  N.  uu.'J. 
C.  B.  207. 


action  for  the  price  of  the  land,  although  the  defendant  retains  posflrssion. 
Andei'son  r.  Hill,  12  Smcd.  6c  ]\Iar.  079;  Concord  Bank  /•.  Gregg,  14  N.  11. 
.331;  Forster  r.  Gillam,  l;5  Pcnn.  340;  Gonlon  r.  Pannelec,  2  Allen,  212; 
Whittier  v.  Vose,  4  Shep.  403  ;  Whitney  r.  Allaire,  4  Denio,  .504.  Contra, 
Cullam  v.  Branch  Bank,  4  Ala.  21 ;  Christian  r.  Scott,  1  Stew.  490 ;  Stone 
V.  Cover,  1  Ala.  287. 

An  action  for  deceit  will  lie  for  false  representations  made  upon  the 
sale  of  land,  and  the  fact  that  the  deed  does  not  contain  a  warranty  cover- 
ing the  ground  of  the  representation  is  immaterial.  Coon  r.  Atwell,  4GN. 
H.  olO;  AVhituey  v.  Allaire,  1  Comst.  30.j ;  Culver  r.  Avery,  7  Wend.  380; 
Wade  r.  Sherman,  2  Bibb,  583. 

*  Dcnncr  r.  Smith,  32  Vt.  1 ;  Poor  v.  Woodburn,  25  Vt.  234  ;  Buchanan 
c.  Homey,  12  111.  336;  Shaw  r.  Bamhart,  17  Ind.  183  ;  Blen  r.  Bear  Hivcr 
&c.  Co.,  20  Cal.  G02;  Jemison  r.  Woodruff,  34  Ala.  143;  Kiiiuey  c  Kier- 
man,  2  Lans.  492  ;  Pierce  r.  Wilson,  34  Ala.  590. 

22 


.T)0  i:r.Mi:iui:s. 

it  witliout  notice  of  tlic  iVaiid.'  Tpoii  tlio  Biiine  luinciplc, 
wliero  a  man  lias  been  imliiccMl  to  l»i"c"i»nic  a  sliarclioldor  of  a 
company,  tlir(»ui;h  the  fraud  ni'  tlu'  comjtany,  lu'  cannot  by 
avoiilini;  his  contract  with  tlie  conipany,  ami  repudiating  his 
shares,  evade  liis  liahility  to  crediturs  of  the  ctunpany,  who 
dealt  with  tlie  company  whilst  he  remained  a  shartdiolder.  and 
who  were  not  jiarties  to  the  fraud.''  l^ut,  althoui^h  it  may  no 
longer  be  open  to  the  party  defrauded,  from  the  change  of  cir- 
cumstaiu'es  whicli  have  taken  place  in  the  meantime,  to  avoid 
the  contract  ujion  the  discovery  of  the  fraud,  he  lias  a  remedy 
by  action  of  deceit  for  damages  against  the  ]»arty  by  whose 
misrepresentations  lie  lias  been  misled  to  his  injury .^ 

The  party  defrauded  may,  insteail  of  rescinding  the  con- 
tract, stand  to  the  bargain,  even  after  he  has  discovered  the 
fr*aud,  and  recover  damages  for  the  fraud,  or  he  may  recoup  in 
damages  if  sued  by  the  vendor  for  the  price.  The  athrmance 
of  a  contract  by  the  vendee  after  discovery  of  the  fraud,  merely 
extinguishes  his  right  to  rescind.  His  other  remedies  remain 
unimpaired.*  " 

If  a  vendee  discover  that  he  is  insolvent,  and  that  it  is  not 
in  iiis  power  to  ])ay  tor  the  goods,  the  c<iurts  have  allowed  him 
to  rescind  the  contract,  and  return  the  goods  to  the  seller,  with 
his  assent,  ])rovided  he  did  so  bef<»re  the  contract  was  consum- 
mated by  an  absolute  delivery,  and  acce])tance,  and  provided 
it  was  done  in  g(»od  faith,  and  not  with  the  colorable  design  of 
favoring  a  j)articular  creditor.     lie  cannot  rescind  the  contract 

'  BorbcT  r.   Uidmnls.  0   Excl).   03;  WostiTii  Bank  of  Scotland  f.  Addle,  L. 

May  >'.  (hnifmiin.  It'.  .M.  «t  W.  :;:..1.  \l.  I.  Sc.  App.  Cn.  107. 

•HindiTson  I'.  Koyiil  Hriti.«Ii  IJiuik,  7  '  Wliitiiey  i'.  Allnirc.4  Dcnio(Amor.V 

E.  A  II.  '>i'>*'> ;  I'owii  I'.  llardiiiL'.  1  <'.  15-  051.     Sco  Van  Kpps  v.  ]larrim>n.  5  Hill 

N.  S.  r.»:j;  Oukci*  r.  TunpiaiKl,  L.  li.  U,  (  AiiiiT.),  OS  ;   2  Kt-iil's  ('omiii. -Ibit ;   li6- 

App  Ca.  3'2S.  darrulf  Hiir  I)ol.,  vtl.  I,  p.  UlS. 

•  Clarke ».  Dickson.  Kl.  Itl.  it  Kl.  1 1'.t; 


*  Peck  r.  Brewer,  48  III.  55;  Ilorem  r.  Lildicy.  fin  Me.  H.'JO ;  ^n^ltncy 
r.  Allaire,  1  Conwt.  liOO;  Wciiucr  c.  lliiiKnt,  ;J7  rriiii.  117;  Ikrrin  p. 
Libbty,  :50  Mc.  a.'iO. 


REMEDIES.  'SrA 

after  tlic  transit  lias  ceased,  and  the  ^oods  have  been  actually 
received  in  his  possession,  and  the  ri-^Iits  of  creditors  have 
attached.^ 

If  ^oods  arc  obtained  IVoni  the  vendor  by  means  of  a  Irand- 
ulent  misrepresentation  of  the  vendee  as  to  his  situation  and 
circumstances,  the  vendor  may  elect  to  aihnn  the  sale,  and  huo 
for  the  price,  or  to  avoid  the  sale  and  follow  the  goods,  or  the 
proceeds  thereof,  into  the  hands  of  a  third  jierson  who  has  re- 
ceived them,  without  paying  any  new  consideration."''  l>ut  if  he 
proceeds  to  judgment  against  the  vendee  after  he  is  apprised 
of  the  fraud,  his  election  is  determined,  and  he  cannot  after- 
ward follow  the  goods  into  the  hands  of  a  third  person  on  the 
ground  of  fraud.^ 

If  the  party  by  whose  misrepresentation  a  transaction  has 
been  induced  is  not  a  party  to  the  transaction,  the  transaction 
stands  good,  and  cannot  be  avoided  unless  one  of  the  parties  to 
the  transaction  was  implicated  in  the  fraud.^  The  party  de- 
frauded has  his  remcdv  l,)y  action  of  deceit  for  damaires  against 
the  party  who  made  the  misrepresentations. 

If  a  specific  chattel  be  sold  under  a  warranty,  and  the  prop- 
erty has  passed  to  the  purchaser,  ho  cannot  return  the  chattel 
and  claim  back  what  he  has  paid,  or  resist  an  action  for  the 
price,  on  the  ground  of  breach  of  warranty,  unless  there  was  a 
condition  to  that  effect  in  the  contract ;  but  must  have  recourse 
to  an  action  for  damages  in  respect  of  the  breach  of  M-arrantv.* 
The  case,  however,  is  difierent  if  fraud  can  be  shown.     If  a 


•Barnes  v.   FreelanJ,   G   T.  R.  SO;  r.3r;   Bank  of  Beioit  i-.  Beale,  7  TiflF. 

Richardson   i«.    Goss,   3   B.  «fc  P.    119;  (Amcr.),  475. 

Ncatc  V.  Ball,  2  East,  117;  Dixon  r.  ^  Masters  v.  Ibberson,  8  C.  B.  100. 

Baldwin,  5  U>.  175;  Salte  v.  Field.  5  T.  *  Street  v.  Blaj-,  2  B.   it   Ad.  4(V_>; 

R.  211.  Dawsou   V.  Collis.  10  C.  B.  523:  BehD 

"Llojd  t>.  Brewster, 4  Paige (Amer.),  v.  Burness,  3  B.  <&  S.  755. 


*  Powell  r.  Bradley,  9  G.  &  J.  220 ;    llcnshaw  v.  Bryant,  4   Sciiui.  97  ; 
Bradbcrry  v.  Keas,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  4-16. 


332  ri;mi:ihi;s. 

representation  l»o  made  tVaiitliili-utly,  tor  tlu'  imrjxtsc  (tf  indue- 
injj  a  party  to  enter  into  a  eontract,  tlie  parly  dctVauik'd  is  en- 
titled to  avoid  the  contrnet  on  tlie  ground  of  fraud,  and  may 
rceovcr  )ta»k  tlii'  priec,  notwithstanding  the  warranty  of  the 
same  mattrr.' 

REMEDIES  IN  EQUITY. 

The  common  law.  however,  h:is  not  provided  the  courts  of 
ordinary  jurisdiction  witli  tin-  nu-ans  of  enforcing  the  ppccific 
restitution  or  recovery  of  property  in  the  ample  manner  that 
was  afl'orded  by  the  Roman  law.  If  the  execution  of  a  deed 
or  other  instrument  had  been  ol)taii\cd  by  fraud,  or  under  such 
circumstances  as  to  require  that  it  should  be  cancelled  and 
delivere<l  uji,  llie  <'ourts  ctf  common  law  were  incompetent  to 
afibrd  such  a  remedy,  so  that,  at  law,  the  i)arty  defrauded 
miirht  be  left  for  an  iiulefinite  leui^th  of  time  liable  to  have  the 
instrument  set  up  against  him,  when  ])ossibly  the  evidence  of 
the  fraud  might  have  become  unattainable.  Tlie  necessity, 
therefore,  for  the  extraordinary  interference  of  the  Court  of 
Chancery,  to  aftbrd  an  adeipiate  remedy,  Iiecanu>  manifest  at  a 
very  early  date.* 

The  juri.sdiction  ot  the  Court  of  Chancery,  hy  way  of  re- 
scinding transactions  (»n  the  ground  of  Iraiid.  is  exercise<l  either 
for  the  purpose  of  canci'lling  exeriitorv  agreements  or  of  setting 
aside  executed  agreements,   deeds,    or   conveyances.       In   tlie 

'.^trf.l  V.  Blay,  2  B.  «t   Ad.   102;       Murruy  v.  Mauu,  2  Exclj.  638. 


•  The  fraud,  which  i.s  tlic  ^touikI  for  relief  uj^ainst  aconlraet,  is  fraud 
at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  instrument.  Cheslennan  r.  (turtlncr,  5 
Johns.  Ch.  29. 

When  a  Huit  ha.H  l)een  instituteil  hotli  at  hiw  and  in  ei|iiity,  the  eoni- 
phiinant  can  not  J)c  re<juired  to  elect  between  the  two  actions  Ix-fore  the 
filin<;  ot  the  answer.  Abel  r.  Cuve.  ',]  15.  .M«>n.  l')9;  rreeni.-in  r.  Staut.s,  4 
ILd.'^t.  Ch.  814. 


T^EMKDIKH.  :'.?,3 

case  of  executory  ap-eeiiK'i  its,  the  rciiiity  ol"  rescission  is  fouii<l«(l 
<»u  tlic  injustice  of  Icavin^^  a  ihmii  exposed,  it  may  be  for  an  in- 
definite time,  to  liave  a  fraudulent  instrument  set  nj)  a;^'aiiist. 
him.  It  is  nut  cnouixh  tliat  he  sliouM  Ix;  able  to  jtlead  fraud 
in  bar  to  an  actiiMi,  whenever  an  action  is  brouglit.  Complete 
justice,  as  understood  by  e(»nrts  of  enuily,  requires  tbat  the 
instrument  sliould  be  delivered  up  and  cancelled.  In  the  case 
of  executed  agreements,  deeds,  or  conveyances,  the  equity  of 
rescission  is  founded  on  the  injustice  of  ])ermitting  a  man  who 
lias  fraudulently  appropriated  the  property  of  others  to  benefit 
by  the  fruits  of  his  iniquity.  Tliou^h  pecuniary  damages  to 
be  obtained  at  law  might  be,  in  some  sense,  a  remedy,  com- 
plete justice,  as  understood  by  courts  of  equity,  requires  that 
the  transaction  should  be  set  aside  and  avoided.^ 

If  a  contract  has  been  induced  by  fjilse  representations,  or 
a  transaction  is  in  any  way  tainted  by  fraud,  and  the  defraud- 
ing party  is  a  party  to  the  transaction,  the  transaction  will, 
even  after  conveyance  and  payment  of  the  purchase-moneys,  be 
set  aside,  if  the  nature  of  the  case  and  the  condition  of  the 
parties  will  admit  of  it;'^  or  the  defrauding  party  will  be  com- 
pelled to  make  his  representation  good.^"      A  man  whose  in- 

'  Evans   r.    Eicknell,    6    Ves.    182;  Case,  25  Bcav.  515  :  Slim  v  Crouclier  1 

Blair  v.  Bromley,  2  Vh.  300.  D.  F.  <fe  J.  518. 

"Edwards   v.    M'Cleay,    Coop.    308,  '  Burrowcs   v.   Lock,  10   Ves.    475- 

S12,  2  Sw.  287;   Berry  v.  Arinitstead,  Pulsford  v.  llieliards,  17Beav.  87  96- 

2  Keen,  221  ;  Lovell   v.  Hicks,  2  Y.  tk  Att.-Gen.  v.  Cox,  3  II.  L.  240.  See  Ellis 

C.  4t>;   Pulsford  v.  Kiclianls,  17  Beav.  v.  Colman,  25  Bcav.  673 
87,  96  ;  Bell's  Case,  22  Beav.  35  ;  Ayre's 


♦Bacon  v.  Bronson,  7  Johns.  Ch.  194;  Bean  r.  Ilcrrick.  12  Me.  2(JJ ; 
Pollard  V.  Rogers,  4  Call,  2:39 ;  Campbell  r.  Whittir.ghani,  o  J.  J  Mar-li 
96. 

Contract.s  in  regard  to  personal,  as  well  as  real  property,  may  Ix;  re- 
scinded. Bradberry  r.  Kcas,  5  J.  J.  3Iarsh.  446  ;  Runiph  r.  Abercronibie, 
12  Ala.  64  ;  Taymon  v.  Mitchell,  1  Md.  Ch.  496. 

A  purchaser  in  the  undisturbed  possession  of  lan<l  will  not  be  relieved 
against  the  payment  of  the  purchase  money  on  the  mere  ground  of  defect 
of  title,  there  being  no  fraud  or  misrepresentation.     In  such  case  he  mu^st 


.^34  ni:Mi;nii:s. 

tiTost  lias  1)0011  alTootoil  l»y  misroprosontatiuii,  lia.s  an  etjuity  to 
he  plncetl  in  the  same  situatiini  Jis  if  the  fact  reproseiitod  were 
true.*  If  thoro  is  iidtliiii:;  in  tho  I'.atiirc  nt'  tlio  oase  or  the  cini- 
«lition  of  llio  i>artie8  to  prevent  the  court  from  ^ettini^  the 
tnuiKiction  sot  aside,  the  ]»arty  defrauded  is  entitled  to  have  it 
set  aside,  and  not  merely  to  have  the  representation  made 
ixood.'  It  is  enough,  in  order  to  entitle  him  to  have  a  trans- 
action set  aside,  to  slmw  a  fi-audulcnt  representation  as  to  any 
part  of  that  which  induced  him  to  enter  into  the  contract 
which  he  seeks  to  rescind.^ 

The  rule  hcing  that  he  who  seeks  eipiity  must  do  ecpiity  in 
matters  arising  out  of  the  transaction  in  respect  of  which  bo 

•  Blair  v.  Broml -y.  2  Ph.  3t50.  *  Konnodv  r.  ranaran,  <kc.  Co.  L.  R. 

*  Rawlins  v.    Wickhiim,   3  1).  it  J.       2,  (.1  B.  :,»j. 
322. 


seek  his  remedy  at  law  upr)n  the  covenants  If  there  is  no  franil  nnd  no 
covenants  to  secure  title,  he  is  without  remedy ;  as  the  vendor  selling  in 
^ood  faith  is  not  responsible  for  the  goodness  of  his  title  beyond  the  ex- 
tent of  his  covenants  in  tlu-  deed.  Patton  r.  Taylor,  7  How.  IX) ;  Abbott 
r.  Allen.  2  Johns.  Ch.  52'2  ;  Davis  v.  Bowland,  2  J.  J.  Maish.  27;  Noonan  v. 
Lee,  2  Blackf.  499. 

The  question  presenteil  by  an  application  lor  a  rescission  is  dilferent 
from  that  presented  in  an  upjjlication  for  specific  performance.  Applica- 
tions to  rescind  must  abide  the  result  one  way  or  the  other  of  the  stern 
proof  of  frau<l.  In  the  absence  of  all  proof  of  »>ifj'j>»tit/itlM  or  8ii/>preM>io 
rm,  parties  must  abide  by  their  contracts.  Mm .y  r.  Eater,  :)  Ihunph. 
3i7. 

If  the  fraud  relates  to  the  title  to  proiK-rty,  it  may  be  removed  by  a  ten- 
der of  a  ^'ood  and  valid  dee<l  ut  any  time  before  decree  in  the  absence  of 
proof  of  (-ixcial  d;imago.  Boyee  r.  (Jrinuly,  :]  Pet.  210;  Davidson  v.  Moss, 
.".  How.  (.Miss.)  (57:5;  Hunt  r.  MeConnell,  1  Mon.  222;  WieklilTe  r.  Lee,  0 
B.  Mon.  5J:J;  Kvans  r.  Boiling.  5  Ala.   TmO;  Ayres  r.  .Mitchell,  :5  Smed.  & 

Mar.  am. 

If  the  frauil  relates  to  the  (juantity  of  land,  tlie  purchaser  may  bo  re- 
lieved from  paying  for  the  chficiency.  M'C'oun  r.  Delancy,  :J  Bibb,  40 ; 
.loppinu  r.  Dorley,  1  Yer^.  2H9. 

If  tin;  fraud  consisls  in  pulling  at  an  auction  cale.  the  excess  may  be 
decreid  to  In-  refim<led.      Veazie  r.  Williams,  S  How.  IIU. 

If  the  defect  of  title    lelat  s  mily  to  a  su)all  portion  of  the  property 


ki:mi:i)1i:s.  335 

Bceks  relief,^  tho  court  will  not  rcsciiul  !i  transaction  unless  the 
party  ui^aiiist  wlioiii  relief  is  sought  can  be  remitted  to  the 
position  in  which  ho  stood  antecedently  to  or  at  the  time  of 
the  transaction. '**  On  setting  aside  a  transaction,  the  court 
proceeds  on  the  ^r(jun(l  that,  as  the  transaction  never  ought  to 

'  Ilnnson  r.  Keating,  4    Ha.  1  ;  Nee-  *  Hanson     v.     Kcatin'^,    4    Ila.     1; 

Boni    V.    (  larksoii,   th.    101;     Sober    v.  Headeii  c  ICiiii;, '.»    Ha.   UM;   Savery  w. 

Kemp,  f.  11a.  ICiK;  Wilkinson  J'.  Kowk.'s,  Kini;.   5   H.    L.  r,27;  Western   Hank  of 

!•   Ha.  593;  Gibson  w.  GoMsniid,  5  J>.  Scotliind  v.   Addie,  L.   It.   1,  Sjc.  App. 

M.  *fc  G.  757.  Ca.  102. 


whirh  did  not  constitute  an  inducement  to  the  purchaser,  it  is  more  equit- 
able to  decree  compensation  than  to  rescind  the  contract.  Buck  v.  Mc- 
Cauglitry,  5  Mon.  216;  Tomlinson  v.  Savage,  6  Ired.  Eq.  430. 

Equity  will  not  decree  compensation  for  fraud  in  a  sale  when  the 
vendee  retains  the  property.  The  remedy  is  at  law.  Stone  v.  Kamsay,  4 
Mon.  2:50 ;  Cocke  r.  Hardin,  G  Litt.  374. 

The  contract  may  be  rescinded  for  fraud  in  relation  to  the  title,  al- 
thouudi  there  is  a  covenant  of  warranty.  Woods  v.  North,  C  Humph.  309  ; 
Engli.sh  i\  Benwood,  25  Miss.  1G7  ;  Prout  v.  Roberts,  32  Ala.  427 ;  More- 
land  V.  Atchinson,  19  Tex.  303. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  eviction  under  an  outstand- 
ing title.  Parkham  v.  Randolph,  4  How.  (Miss.)  435  ;  Napier  c.  Elam,  C 
Ycrg.  108. 

A  vendee  can  not  buy  in  an  outstanding  title,  and  assert  it  against  the 
vendor.  All  he  Lj  entitled  to  is  a  repayment  of  the  money  paid  out. 
Hardeman  v.  Couan,  10  Smed.  &  Mar.  4S6 ;  "Westall  v.  Austin,  5  Ired. 
Eq.  1. 

Abandonment  of  possession  is  not  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  entitle 
the  party  to  recover.  Young  r.  Harris,  2  Ala.  108;  Collee  r.  Newsom,  2 
Kelly,  442 ;  Foster  v.  Gersett,  29  Ala.  303 ;  Garner  r.  Lcorett,  32  Ala.  410. 

The  vendee,  upon  rescission,  must  ofler  to  return  tliL'  property.  3Iorc 
V.  Smedburgh,  8  Paige,  GOO ;  Duncan  v  Jeter,  5  Ala  G04 ;  Abel  r.  Cave,  9 
B.  Mon.  159;  Bruen  c.  Hone,  2  Barb.  oS^j;  ?.ratta  o.  Henderson,  14  La.  An. 
473. 

*  Garland  r.  Bowlini;,  1  Hemp.  710;  Johnson  v.  Jones,  13  Smed.  & 
Mar.  580;  Pintard  t\  Martin,  1  Smed.  ct  3Iar.  Ch.  12G;  Cunningham  r. 
Fithian,  2  Gilman,  G50 ;  Carroll  r.  Rice,  1  "Walk.  Ch.  373. 

The  fact  that  the  parties  cannot  be  put  precisely  in  st<itu  quo  as  to  the 
tfubject- matter  of  the  contract  will  not  jircclude  a  decree  for  the  rescission 
of  the  contract.  If  it  would,  an  executed  contract  nevci- could  be  rcscin<led 
by  a  decree  of  a  court,  for  the  parties  never  could  be  thus  placed.  Galling 
r.  Newell,  9  Ind.  572. 


'>oO 


i;i;Mr.iiii;s. 


liavo  taken  }>l;ii;i',  tlif  rii,'lits  of  the  ji.irtios  aiv,  as  tar  as  possible, 
to  bo  placed  in  the  same  8ituation  in  which  they  would  have 
stood  if  there  had  lu'ver  been  any  such  transaction.'  If  the 
party  defrauded  has,  by  his  own  act,  j»ut  it  out  of  his  power  ti> 
replace  the  j)arty  a^^ainst  whom  relief  is  soui,dit  in  the  position 
in  which  he  stood  at  the  time  of  the  trajisaction,' or  if  third 
parties,  without  notice  of  the  fraud,  have  in  the  meantime  ae- 
iiuired  ri;rhts  and  interests  in  the  matter,'  there  can  be  no  re- 
scission ;  and  nothing  remains  to  the  party  defrauded  but  u 
reparation  in  damai^es.^  Rescission  of  a  transaction  or  contract 
cannot  in  gener.il  be  had,  unless  the  party  seeking  it  is  able 
himself  to  rescind  it  in  toto?*  Under  special  circumstances,  a 
transaction  may  be  partially  rescinded;  but  the  court  will 
never  adopt  such  a  course  unless  it  can  see  clearly  that  no  in- 
justice will  be  done.'  If  the  transaction  is  severable,  inability 
to  rescind  it  as  to  part  is  not  fatal  to  the  right  to  rescind  it  as 
to  another  part.'     The  fact,  for  instance,  that  a  man  who  has 


'  Bellamy  v.  Sabine,  2  Ph.  \ir^. 

*  Nicoll's  ('US',  3  D.  .k  J.  TiST; 
Mixer's  (  a.«c,  4  1>.  «t  J.  586. 

'  ScholHeUl  V.  Tiiii|.lcr.  4  I).  A  J. 
42y  ;  Oakes  r.  Turquand,  L.  U.  2,  Aj.p. 
Ca.  ST.I. 

*  Mixer's  Case,  4  D.  &  J.  58i'.. 

*  liousun  V.  Keutin;r,  4  11  a.  1  ;  Clarke 


V.  Dickson,  El.  Bl.  tt  El.  148;  M:\turi:» 
V.  Tmlenniok,  12  W.  K.  7H»;  Wo.-terii 
Biuik  of  Scotland  v.  Addle,  L.  U.  1.  Se. 
Apji.  Ca.  Iti2,  siifira. 

»  Bradl.y  v.  Bosl.-v.  1  Barb.  (Amcr.). 
12.V 

'  .Matiiriii  i'.  Treditinick,  12  W.  \\. 
74(1. 


*  GoMon  r.  M:iiiiiin,2  J.  J.  M;irsli.  230;  Clay  r.  Tumor,  :i  Bibb,  52. 

The  general  rule  is,  that  where  the  whole  contract  is  contaminated  with 
fraud,  and  tin-  parties  can  be  placed  in  Htatu  quo,  the  contract  may  be 
reminded.  Where  that  <-an  not  be  done,  or  where  the  injured  party  is  un- 
willing to  Jiave  it  done,  then  the  party  a'^LTrievcd  niust  seik  iiis  redrcs.s 
e.\elusively  at  law.  Caldwell  r.  Calilwdl,  1  .1.  J.  .Mar-li.  'i'.\;  i'iiitanl  r. 
Martin,  1  Hmed.  it  .Mar.  Ch.  120. 

A  vendee  may  liavc  the  contract  fiet  nnide,  or  compensation  for  a  defect 
fraudulently  concealed  from  him.  The  courts  will  not  re-^cind  a  part  only 
of  an  entire  contnict.  Joplin  r.  Docdiy,  1  Yerj;.  280;  (tiassell  r.  Thomas, 
:!  I.ei^'h.  1  1:5 ;  Ilojfe  r.  Kvanx,  1  Smed.  ic  Mar.  Ch  H»')  ;  Step  r.  Alkire,  3 
A.  K.  Marsh,  257  ;  Prewilt  r.  Graves,  Ti  J.  J.  Marsh.  111. 


iiE:\rEi)iKS.  337 

been  induced  l>v  iVainl  to  j)urclias(!  sliarcs  in  a  ]>:irticiilar  cmih. 
])Hny,  may  liavo  sold  sumo  of  the  sliarun  hefore  discovering  the 
fraud,  will  not  dc])rive  liim  of  the  rii,dit  toliave  the  transaction 
as  to  the  reniainini^  shares  rescinded!*  X(U*  is  the  inal^ility  of 
a  man  to  resriml  a  transaction  as  a  whole  I'atal  to  his  rijrht  of 
rescission,  if  his  inability  to  do  so  is  attrihiitahle  to  the  partv 
against  Avhom  he  seeks  relief.  If  the  latter  lias  entangled  and  i 
com[)licated  the  sul)ject  of  the  transaction  in  s'lch  a  manner  as 
to  render  it  impossible  that  he  should  be  restored,  the  party 
defrauded  may,  on  doing  whatever  it  is  in  his  power  to  do, 
have  the  transaetioii  rescinded.-  So  also,  it  is  no  ol)jection  to 
the  rescission  of  a  transaction  for  the  purchase  of  shares  ob- 
tained by  fraud  that  the  shares  have  fallen  in  value  since  the 
date  of  the  transact  ion.^f  Nor  is  a  man,  if  the  property  is  of  a 
])erisliable  nature,  bnund  to  keep  it  in  a  state  of  preservation 
until  bill  filed.'':}:  Ilis  only  duty  is  to  do  nothing  with  the 
]»roperty  after  the  bill  filed;  and  in  cases  where  damage  is 
likely  to  occur,  and  might  be  prevented,  he  ought,  perhaps,  to 
give  intimation  to  the  defendant,  leaving  him  to  do  what  he 
pleased.'  A  party  seeking  to  set  aside  a  sale  of  shares,  is  not 
bound  to  pay  calls  on  them  to  prevent  forfeiture  after  filing 
his  bill.*  It  is  not  fatal  to  his  right  of  rescission  that  some  of 
the  shares  may  have  been  forfeited  for  non-payment  of  calls 
since  bill  filed.' 

A  sale,  however,  of  several  kinds  of  shares  in  one  transac- 
tion cannot  be  set  aside  for  misrepresentation,  if  the  person 
seeking  relief  is  unable  to  restore  all  the  shares  he  has  taken. ^ 

'  Maturin  v.  TreJennick,   12  W".  R.  *  5I;iturin    v.   Tredcnnick,    2    X.    R. 

740.  514  ;  4  N.  R.  15  ;  12  W.  R.  740. 

"  Masson  v.  Bovet,  1  Denio  (Amer.),  '  Jl>. 

09.  "  Jb. 

»  Blake  v.  Mo  watt,  21  Beav.  613.  ^  lb.  •  Jb, 


*  Shackloford  v  ILindy,  1  A.  K.  Man«h.  49.j. 
t  Ycazie  r.  Williams.  8  How.  134. 
\  Scott  r.  Porriu,  4  Bibb,  3G0. 


338  RKMKDir.S. 

% 
Whc'tlu'r   the  c-li:ini:o  of  a  c<iiii|t;iny  ih>\n  nn   iii(or|»oratcd 

inti»  a  i-urjH»rate  uut",  lor  the  iiuii'  juirpose  ot'  iiioro  lonvcnicntly 
wiiuliiii;  up  its  atlairs,  n-iKk-rs  r(.'>titutioii  imprac-ticalik',  is  a 
ditlicult  <jiK'stion.  In  Clarke  v.  Dic-k.'Jun,' a  niiiiiii<^  coii»j»aiiy 
was,  with  tlie  ]»hiiiititi"s  consent,  rei;istereu  as  a  cM»nij»any  with 
limited  liahility,  and  was  wound  uj)  under  the  AVindini^-up  Act. 
Jn  an  action  lor  nioin'v  had  and  rtni'lvid,  to  ncoM-r  hack  the 
amount  paid  lor  the  purchase  of  the  shares,  th*;  court  held  the 
action  not  maintainaltle.  Erie,  C.  J.,  said :  "lie  has  changed 
the  nature  of  the  article;  the  shares  he  received  were  shares  in 
a  company,  on  the  cost-book  j)rincij>le ;  the  plaintiff  offers  to 
restore  tlieni  atU-r  he  l:as  converted  lluiu  into  shares  in  a  joint- 
stock  company."  The  cases  show  tliat  there  is  no  distinction 
betwec-n  cases  where  the  question  arises  between  an  alkyed 
shareholder  and  the  creditors  of  a  company,  and  wlien  it  arises 
between  a  company  and  a  ])erson  who  has  fraudulently  been 
induced  to  become  a  shareholder.^  In  Henderson  v.  Lacon,^ 
however,  Wood,  L.  J.,  held  that  a  man  who  had  been  induced 
by  the  false  representations  of  the  directors  ot  a  company  to 
take  shares  in  the  comi)any,  might,  if  his  bill  was  liled  before 
an  order  for  winding  up  was  made,  sustain  a  suit  for  the  recov- 
ery ot"  his  moneys,  notwithstanding  tlie  company  was  being 
Wound  up.  So  also,  it  was  held  by  the  Lords  Justices  in 
Smith's  Case,  /iV  Heese  Iliver  Co.,*  that  it  a  bill  be  liled  to  set 
asiiit'  a  transa('ti(»n  on  the  ground  of  false  re])resentat ion,  before 
a  winding-up  ordi-r  has  been  made,  a  man  is  entitled  to  relief, 
notwithstanding  a  snl».>c'(ju(.'nt  winding-uj)  order.  The  apj>liea- 
tion  in  this  case  was  made  under  the  winding  up.  In  the 
former  case,  judgment  was  given  on  the  bill. 

If  the  parties  to  the  transaction  cannot  be  restored  to  tiicir 


•  i:i.  HI.  A-  Kl.  HO.  '  L.  K.  r.;   ]:<\.  2iV2. 

»  WcHliTM  iJnnk  of  Srntlond  i-  AdJlo,  *  I..  K.  '.I;  «  li.  .\]<\<.  Odl. 

L.  H.  1,  Sc.  Apii.  Cu.  107. 


REMKDirS.  339 

t 

ori^nnal  condition,  tlic  Iransaction  Btands  good,  and  cnniot  ho 
rescinded.  Tlic  party  defrauded  inu.stseek  redress  in  an  action 
on  the  ease  at  law  for  the  fraud,  or,  if  lie  is  sued  on  the  cxn- 
traet,  lie  may  reeou})  in  (hinia^es.* 

li'  the  false  representation  hy  whic]i  a  contract  has  been 
induced  was  not  niado  fraudulently,  but  was  made  through 
mistake  or  misiipprehension,  and  the  subject-matter  of  the  con- 
tract, though  different  in  some  regi)ects  and  in  certain  incidents 
from  what  it  was  represented  to  be,  is  not  so  diflerent  in  sul)- 
stance  from  what  it  Mas  represented  to  be  as  to  amount  to  a 
failure  of  consideration,  the  transaction  will  not  be  set  aside,  it 
the  party  who  made  the  representation  is  willing  to  give  com- 
pensation for  the  variance,^  and  the  variance  is  such  as  to  admit 
of  compensation  by  a  pecuniary  equivalent.^  If,  however,  the 
misdescription  of  the  property  is  such  that  it  cannot  be  estimated 
by  a  pecuniary  equivalent,  there  is  no  case  for  compensation, 
and  the  transaction  will  be  set  aside.'* 

If  the  person  by  whose  fraudulent  misrepresentation  a 
transaction  has  been  induced,  is  not  himself  a  party  to  the 
transaction,  the  transaction  stands  good  and  cannot  be  rcjtudi- 
ated,  if  the  other  i>arty  to  the  transaction  has  not  been  party 
or  privy  to  the  fraud.'*  The  party  defrauded  must  seek  re- 
dress in  an  action  in  the  case  at  law,  for  damages  against  the 
party  of  whose  fraud  he  complains.^    If,  for  instance,  a  man 


'  Kinjr  ti.  ITamlct.  2  M.   <t  K.  456;  Ben  v.  612.     See  Ilowlnnd  v.  Xorris,  1 

Great  Luxemburg  Railway  Co.  v.  Mag-  Cox.  CI. 

nay,  25  Boav.  5)S7.  '  Tulsford  v.  Bicliards,  17  Benv.  95; 

"  Sec  Dyer  v.  llargrave,  10  Ves.  507;  Duranty's  Case,  2tj  Beav.  270;  Worth's 

Hill  t'.  Buckley.   17   Yes.   S95 ;  Martin  Casi-.  4"l)rt\v.   529;  A'e  Felgatu's  Case, 

I'.  Cotter,  3  J. 'it  L.  49(5;  Shaekli-ton  v.  2  ]>.  .T.  it  S.  450. 

Suiclitr.',  1  Dog.  &  S.  C20;  Tulsford  v.  "  Wliitniorc   v.   Mackeson,  16  Beav. 

Richards,  1 7  Beav.  96.  1 2S  ;  I'ulstord  i-.  Richards,  1 7  Beav.  95  ; 

'  Infra,  pp.  362-366.  Ellis   v.    I'olman.    25   Beav.    673.     See 

♦  Leyland  v.  lllingworth,  2  D.  F.  it.  J  I'a.-^lcy  v.  Freeman,  3  T.  R.  52. 
248;  Earl   of  Durham  t-.   Legard,   34 


*  Applcton  r.  Ilorton,  25  Me.  23;  Lcc  v.  Vanghan,  1  Cil'b,  235. 


•'10  REMKim.S. 

lias  lii'iMi  iiuhicid  l»v  tlic  \'.\\>r  n'|ir(>ciit:itiniis  of  a  lliinl  parfv 
to  tleal  with  aiioflur.  In-  caniint  have  tlic  tran.-artii»u  n-sciiided, 
if  the  otluT  i>arty  ti»  the  transaction  has  nut  Ixcn  partv  or  privy 
to  the  false  re]»resentation.'  ]Ie  ninst  seek  redress  in  an  action 
oil  the  case  at  law,  against  tlio  jjarty  hy  whose  fal.  e  rejiresenta- 
tions  he  has  been  induced  to  deal.*  -  So,  also,  if  a  man  has 
heen  induced  to  take  shares  from  a  company  hy  iVaudiilcnt  mis- 
representations made  l»y  seme  ]»crs<.n,  n<.t  hy  an  ai^cnt  of  the 
company,  anthori/ed  to  make  any  representations  or  authorized 
to  deal  on  behalf  of  the  comi)any,  he  is  hound  by  his  contract 
with  the  company,  and  cannot  liave  it  rescinded.  He  must 
seek  redress  in  an  actitui  on  the  case  at  law  ai^ainst  the  person 
who  made  the  representation.'  So,  also,  if  a  man  has  been 
induced  to  buy  shares  in  a  comj>any  from  a  shareholder,  on 
false  and  fraudulent  representations  nuule  to  him  by  the  seller, 
the  company  not  being  a  party  or  privy  to  the  fraud,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  have  the  transfer  set  aside  as  ])etween  himself  and 
the  company,  or  to  restrain  the  company  from  making  calls  on 
him,  whilst  he  is  a  shareholder.  Ilis  remedy  is  against  his 
vendor,  to  comi)el  him  to  accept  a  re-transfer  of  the  shares,  and 
for  an  indemnity  for  the  losses  he  has  sustained  in  consequence 
of  having  taken  the  shares.'' 

Cases  in  which  a  man  has  been  induced  by  false  representa- 
tions to  purchase  shares  directly  from  a  com])any,  must  be  dis- 
tinguished from  cases  in  which  the  transaction  is  not  with  the 
compan}',  but  is  between  two  individuals,  meeting  in  the  mar- 
ket and  dealing  for  their  private  interests,  like  the  seller  and 


'  l*ul«f'>rd  r.  Kiolinrdfi,  17  I5cnv.  I'S;           *  Seo  Stninlmnk   v.    Vvrn]<^\,  9  Sim. 

Ilurnnty'HCuJH',  '2<'>  Ik-av.  '.£71.  n.'.rt  ;   SiKlcn  v.  C.iniHll.  Id  Sim.  .'iS,  7'.» ; 

»  Jb.  '  Miitnriii  r.  Tn-.i.-iiiiii  k.  •.•  .\.  IJ.  MJ  ;  4 

'  UrfM-kwfU'H  Chw?,  4  Drew,  '.in.');  Ni-       N.  K.  l.'.;   i»ur:iiity'n  <  iisr.  'ir.  Hmv.  '271, 

coH's  CiuK-,  8  D.  <t  J.  4'i7.  '.i7a ;  WorUiu  Cuao,  1  Drew.  b2\i. 


*  Woodman  r.  Frofinaii,  So  Me.  HM. 


REMEDIES.  '.}\\ 

purchaser  of* transferable  shares.  If  a  in:in  he  iiKhiccrl  hv 
false  representations  on  tlic  jiart  of  the  (lirectors  of  a  compiiny, 
to  purchase  shares  in  the  company  from  an  actual  shareholder, 
%vho  has  not  been  himself  a  party  or  privy  to  the  false  repre- 
sentations, the  shares  cannot  be  forced  back  on  the  v(.'ndor,  be- 
cause on  his  part  the  transaction  has  been  Jo/ja  ^Vd,  nor  can 
the  transaction  be  set  aside  as  between  the  purchaser  of  the 
shares  and  the  company  ;  for  the  contract  has  been  between  in- 
dividuals, and  the  company  stands  in  point  of  law  in  the  rela- 
tion of  a  third  party.  Tlie  purchaser  of  the  shares  must  seek 
his  remedy  at  law  against  the  parties  by  M'hose  false  representa- 
tions lie  has  been  misled.^ 

All  that  equity  can  do  where  a  man  has  been  induced  to 
enter  into  a  transaction  by  the  false  and  fraudulent  representa- 
tions of  a  person  who  is  not  a  party  to  the  transaction,  is  to 
make  him  make  good  his  assertion  as  far  as  is  possible.^  And 
the  court  can  do  this  in  many  cases.  "Where,  according-ly,  upon 
a  treaty  for  marriage,  a  person,  to  whom  the  intended  husband 
was  indebted,  was  asked  by  the  father  of  the  lady  to  make  out 
a  list  of  the  debts  of  the  intended  husband,  and,  in  doing  so, 
omitted  the  debt  which  was  due  to  himself,  on  the  representa- 
tion made  to  him  by  the  intended  husband,  that,  if  the  debt 
were  disclosed,  the  marriage  would  be  prevented  taking  place, 
he  was,  after^the  marriage,  restrained  by  perpetual  injunction 
from  enforcing  the  debt  against  the  husband.^  So,  also,  where 
upon  a  treaty  of  marriage,  a  brother,  in  order  to  make  it  ap- 
pear that  his  sister  had  a  fortune  of  £500,  whereas  she  had  only 
£350,  gave  her  a  sum  of  £150,  so  as  to  make  up  £500,  and  she 

'  Durnnty's  Case,  26  Bcav.  273,  274  ;  17  Bcav.  229  ;  Stephens  v.  Venftblos, ."?! 

Inplis  V.   Lumsden,   21   l)ec.  of  Ct.  of  Beav.  127;  Yeonians  »v  Willi;im-<,  L.  R. 

Session,  2d  series,  200.     See  Worth's  1  Eq.  IS.");  Comi).  Ellis   i'.   Cohiian,  2.% 

Case,  t  Drew.  Hi'.h  Beav.  ^u^^. 

'  Tulsfoi-d  V.  Richards.  17  Beav.  87,  '  Neville  r.  Wilkinson,    1    Bro.  C.  C. 

9,5.    See  llobbs  r.  Norton,  1  Vcrn.  13.5  ;  .543.     See  Dalbiac  v.  Dulbiac,  16  Ves. 

Arnot  V.  Bi.*coe,  1  Ves.  9.5;  Burrowes  124;    Vau.\hall    Bridge    Co.    v.    Lord 

I'.  Lock,  10  Ves.  470;  Bushby  v.  Ellis;  Spencer,  Jac.  07. 


'M'2  iti:Mi:itii:s. 

ii'ave  liim  ii  lunul  lur  tlic  aiii(»unt,  ami  tlu'  iiiarriai^i'  ttxik  jilaco 
upon  tlie  faith  of  tlie  re]>rt'sc'ntatioJi,  it  was  lii-M  that  tlic  hond 
couhl  imt  lie  cnloiri'd,  ami  it  was  (tnleri'tl  tu  lit- dt'liviTC'd  up  to 
he  cancelled.^  So,  also,  wlurr  a  man  had  made  ft  false  repre- 
scntati(»n  as  to  the  value  of  ]»roperty,  which  he  had  agreed  to 
char-^e  as  security  for  another  ])erson,  his  re])resentatives  were 
lield  boun«l  to  make  it  fjood.*  So,  also,  where  a  nuirriage  was 
contracted,  ami  a  settlement  made  on  the  faith  of  representa- 
tions hy  the  executor  of  a  will,  under  w  lii«-h  a  certain  sum  of 
money  was  left  to  the  intended  husban<l,  that  the  leirJicy  was 
substantial  and  safe  and  would  be  ])aid  at  a  future  time,  the 
estate  of  the  executor  was  held  to  liave  thereliv  become  in- 
debted for  the  wli(de  amount.^  So,  also,  where  a  father  pre- 
viously to  the  marriage  of  his  daughter,  promises  to  the  in- 
tended husband  to  leave  her  a  sum  of  money,  and  the  ])romisc 
amounts  to  a  distinct  engagement  or  undertaking,  and  the  mar- 
riage takes  place  on  the  faith  of  such  representation,  the  court 
will  give  efiect  to  it  against  the  estate  of  the  father.*  So,  also, 
the  trustee  of  a  fund,  who,  having  received  notice  of  an  in- 
cundtrance  on  the  fund,  had  re]>rescnted  to  a  creditor  of  the 
beneficiary  that  the  fund  Avas  unincund)ered,  and  that  the  ben- 
eficiary had  a  right  to  nuike  an  assignment,  was  held  bound  to 
make  up  the  deticiency.'  So,  also,  a  solicitor  mIio  has  made  to 
Ins  client  untrue  representations  respecting  a  property  on  which 
his  client  is  about  to  advance  money,  may  be  compelled  to 
make  good  his  re])resentations.^* 

'  CJnle   V.    Liniiii,  1   Vcni.  47.'>.     Sco  Alt.  4  CiilT.  SI.     Si-i'  .laiiirSDn  v.  Stein, 

MoMt.-tiori  V.  M<>ntifi<iri.  1  W.  HI.  3(i3.  21  1'n'nv.  .'. ;  Kny  v.  Crook,  .'{  Sm.  tt  (;. 

Iiitjrnm  v.  TlioriK-,  7  Ila.  fi?.  407  ;  Trolc  v.  So.uly.  2  (JitT.  1  ;  Stojihens 

*  Hiitlon  I'.  UohKittr.  7  D.  M.  ct  (i.  0.  v.  VciiiiIiIih,  III  IJ.iiv.  lis. 

«  HiiinnuTxIi-y  V.   !)«•  Hi<  I,  12  CI.  A.  •IJiirrowoH   c.    Lock,    lo    Vrs.    470; 

Fin.  4.'»;   Iliirkw<»rlli  r.  Youn;,'.  4  Drew.  .Slim  v.  CroiicluT.  1  1>.  V.  A  ,].  618. 
1  ;  MauHMll  f.  Iloel;;.-.  4  H.  L.  In.;.!;  •  Clolond  r.  Lncli,  5  Ir.  Cli.  478. 

Luvir   V.  FIfldcr,  H'l  Ikav.   1      *'*    ■ 


•  Bacon  c.  Johnson,  7  John;*,  Cli.  191. 


REMEDIES.  aio 

'riiiiiii,'li,  wlicro  (iiic  pfixdi  states  a  fact  to  lie  true,  on  tlic 
faitli  of  wliieli  auotlier  actn,  a  court  of  equity  will  often  eom- 
])el  liini  to  make  his  assertion  ^ood,  it  does  ui^t  follow  that 
M'here  a  man  has  <;iven  a  f^cneral  character  re8j)ectin<^  another, 
tlie  person  to  whom  the  representation  was  made  can  come 
into  equity  to  compel  liini  to  make  good  Iiis  r(i)resentation. 
Tliongli  a  person  who  misrepresents  the  character  or  the  credit 
of  another,  is  liable  for  the  damage  occasioned  by  such  rej)rc- 
sentation,  the  amount  can  only  be  determined  in  a  court  of 
law  by  an  action  for  damages.^ 

The  rules  with  respect  to  sales  by  the  court  are  not  less 
sti-iiigent  than  in  ordinary  cases.^  If  a  sale  has  taken  place 
under  a  decree  of  the  court,  and  there  has  been  false  represen- 
tation or  undue  concealment  in  the  conditions  or  particulars  of 
sale,  or  a  good  title  cannot  be  shown,  the  sale  will  be  set  aside 
if  application  be  made  before  conveyance  is  executed.^  If  the 
conveyance  be  executed,  the  purchaser  must  take  the  conse- 
quences, and  can  only  rely  on  the  covenants.^ 

The  court  will  not  rescind  a  transaction  without  requiring 
the  party  in  whose  favor  it  interferes,  to  restore  the  party 
against  whom  relief  is  sought,  as  far  as  possible,  to  that  which 
shall  be  a  just  situation,  with  reference  to  the  rights  which  he 
held  antecedently  to  the  transaction.^*     The  terms  on  which  a 


'  Whitmore  t-,  MacTceson,    16  Ecav.  ■'Thomas  v.   Powell,    2    Cox,    394; 

128.  irCulicich  V.  Grt'irory.  1  K.  «t  J.  28(i. 

'  Lachlan  »•.  Reynolds,  Kay,  55.  ''  Bi-ilamy  v.  Sabine,  2  I'h.  425 ;  King 

'  76.     McCulloch  V.  (ireaory,  1  K.  &  v.  fcjavery,  5  II,  L.  027. 

J.  28fi.     Sec  Ward  v.  Tratlie,  14  Sim. 

82;  Linehan  v.  Cotter,  7  Ir.  Eq.  176. 


*  The  rules  of  law  relatintj  to  ppccilic  performnnee  and  those  applied 
to  the  rescission  of  contracts,  altl)ou';h  not  identically  the  same,  have 
a  near  athnity  for  each  other.  Boyce  t.  Grundy,  3  Pet.  210;  Beck  r. 
Simmons,  7  Ala.  71 ;  'Walker  v.  Collins,  11  Ohio.  31:  Jackson  r.  Ashton, 
11  Pet.  229. 

Merc  deterioration  of  the  property  is  no  objection  to  a  rescission  of  the 


:m  1 


UEMKDIKP. 


transactii>n  will  bf  ivstiinKil  \aiv  uitli  tlu'  i>!irtic'ular  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  In  smnc  cases  deeds  liavc  l»een  absoluldv 
rescinded*  l»v  the  cuiirt  dt'crccini;  tlieni  to  In-  delivered  iij»  tn 
be  eanci'lK'(l ;  ^  but  the  usual  cdur.-e  (.f  the  cnuit  in  setting 
aside  a  transaction,  is  to  j>roceed  on  the  maxim,  that,  he  who 
seeks  etinity  must  do  eciuity.^  Instruments,  acct»rdingly,  are 
either  set  aside  on  rcj)ayment  of  the  actual  consideration  with 
interest  thereon  at  a  reasonable  rate,**  or  are  dii-ected  to  stan<l 
as  a  security  for  the  moneys  actually  advanced,  with  interest 
thereon  at  a  reasonable  rate,"*  (.>r  for  what  uj>on  investigation 
shall  be  ascertained  to  be  really  due.^f  If  the  i)roi)erty  is 
personal,  a  decree  for  the  repayment  of  moneys,  or  the  delivery 
up  and  cancellation  of  the  instrument,  will  be  comj)lete  relief. 

'  Bates  f.  Graves, '2  Yes.  Jr.  'JS7.  .Miirlh<>n>iiL')i.   2  Rw.   ICfi;    IVncock  i-. 

*  h«ec  Juckwan  v.  Mitchell,  13  Yes.  Kvnns,  Id  Vcs.  512;  ('olcl<iiii;h  r.  IJol- 
680.  per,  4  Dow.  CI;    Kin«;  v.  Iliiiiilet,  2  M. 

»  Wilkinson  v.  Fowkes,  0  Ha.  594.  tV  K.  4r.G;    3  CI.  it  Hn.    21S;    Karl  of 

*  r.arnaili-ton  v.  Lingood,  2  Atk.  Alilboroimh  v.  Trye,  7  CI.  tt  I'in.  4:;(>, 
13.T;  Lawley  »'.  Hooper,  3  Atk.  278;  4f.2;  Carter  i-.  Palmer.  8  Cl.  it  Fin. 
Gwynne  t-. 'lleaton,  1  Bn>.  C.  C.  1  ;  t)57,  11  I'.ligli,  397;  liilla^e  r.  yoiitluc. 
Lovell  V.  Hicks,  2  Y.  A  C.  55;  Wilson  9  Ha.  64(»;  Baker  v.  Bradley,  7  D.  .M. 
V.  Short,  G  Ha.  384;  Ingram  v.  Thorp,  ik  (J.  597;  Croft  v.  Graham,*  2  1).  J.  it 
7  Ha.  G7.  y.  155. 

'  I'roof  r.  Hines,  Forrest,  111 ;  Crowe  'Wharton   ».    May,  5  Yes.  27;    Tur- 

f.  liallard,   3  Bro.  C.  C.  120;    Newman  edl  r.  Macnamiira.  II  Y.-s.  91  ;   Watt  r. 

V.    Payne,    2   Yes.    Jr.    199;    Byne   »'.  (Jrove,  2  Seh.  it  Lef.  492;  Longniate  c. 

Yivian,  5  Yci  604;    Davis  v.  ])uke  of  Ledger,  2  Giff.  157. 


contract.  Vcazie  r.  WilliamB,  8  How.  134;  Buck  r.  McCaughtny,  5  Mon. 
210;  Glover  r.  Smith,  1  Dessau.  4:j:}. 

^VIle^  n  portion  of  the  proijciiy  has  ptu^sed  to  the  liands  of  a  houa  Jh/t 
holder,  the  court  may  enter  a  (Uci>ec  against  the  defcnchuit  for  its  value, 
and  compel  a  surrender  of  the  balance.     McNeil  r.  Turner,  0  Munf.  310. 

A  decree  for  a  rc«ci8>ion  of  tiie  contract  without  a  restoration  of  the 
property,  is  erroneous.  C'ani])lin  i.  Burton,  2  J.  J.  Marsii.  "J Hi;  \Yatera  r. 
Lemmon,  4  Ohio,  229. 

A  vendee  wIk)  has  Bought  in  nn  adverse  claim  rannot  olitain  a  rescijv- 
Bion  of  the  contract  without  surrendering  tlie  j)roperty.  (Jrundy  r.  Jack- 
son, 1  Litt.  11. 

•  Gardner  r.  Ogden,  22  N.  Y.  327  ;  WellO.rd  r.  {•han(el!..r,  r,  Gratt.  39; 
Miles  r.  lr>in,  1  Mc(  ord'H  Ch.  524. 

f  Smith  r.  Lansing,  22  N.  Y.  520;  Owing*«  Case,  1  I'.I.md,  I'.TO ;  <'urii<: 
r.  Coules,  0  Bo3W.  452. 


remki)ii:h.  315 

iiltliouf^li  the  legal  interest  ylionM  have  been  eoiiveycfl.*  iJut 
if  tlio  Bubject-matter  of  the  transaction  he  real  Chtate,  it  it* 
nsual  to  direct  a  reconveyance,  hecanse  if  tiii.s  in  not  done,  a 
•  piestion  may  arise  as  to  what  has  l)econie  of  the  real  estate.'^ 
if,  however,  the  deed  is  not  merely  voidable,  but  wholly  void, 
no  reconveyance  is  neces>ary.' 

The  terms  on  which  a  reconveyance  will  be  ordered,  are 
the  repayment  of  the  purchase-moneys  and  all  sums  laid  out 
fn  improvements  and  repairs  of  a  permanent  and  substan- 
tial nature,  by  which  the  ])resent  value  is  imj)roved,  with 
interest  thereon  Irom  tlie  times  when  they  Avere  actually  di.- 
bursed.*     On  the  other  hand,  chai-u'es  fur  the  deteriorati(jn  of 

'See    1    Ves.   370;    Willinrasoii   v.  Clnrk  c  llalpns,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  096 ;    but 

(lihon,  2  Sch.  «t  Lef.  357;  Enstabrook  see  lloi^liton  ;•.  IIoi;liton.  15  Bt-av.  278; 

I'.  Scott,  3  Vfs.  455;    Cooper  v.  Joel,  1  Alt.  Gen.  t'.  Magdalen  College,  18  Beav. 

B.  F.  <fe  J.  240 ;    Slim  v.  Croueher,  ib.  255 
620.  ^  Ogilvie  v.  JeafTreson,  2  G iff.  381. 

"Pickett    r.    LuiX'-uu,    11    Ve.s.    231; 


*  Hardinsc  v.  Handy,  11  Wheat.  103;  Brooke  r.  Berrj-,  2  Gill,  83> 
Moselcy  v.  Buck,  3  :>runf.  232;  Tvler  t).  Black,  13  How.  230;  Glass  r. 
Brown,  G  Mon.  3"j(> ;  Ellis  r.  Graves,  ~)  Dana,  111) ;  Bullock  r.  Beemi.-^,  1  A. 
K.  :Marsli.  433 ;  Caklwcll  r.  Wliito,  5  J.  J.  Marsli.  207. 

If  the  vendee  buys  up  a  better  title  than  that  of  the  vendor,  and  the 
vendor  is  not  guilty  of  fraud,  he  can  only  be  compelled  to  refund  to  the 
vendee  the  amount  paid  for  the  better  title  and  a  reasonable  compensation 
for  trouble  and  expenses.     Galloway  r.  Finlcy,  12  Pet.  2G4. 

The  i)urcbascT  will  not  be  compelled  to  account  for  rent  when  he  is 
liable  to  others  for  it.     Glass  r.  Brown,  G  Mon,  3.j0. 

The  use  of  the  property  by  the  vendee  is  generally  held  to  balance  the 
interest  on  the  purchase  money.  Talbot  r.  Subree,  1  Dana,  oG ;  Williams 
V.  Rogers,  2  Dana,  374 ;  Williams  v.  Wilson,  4  Dana,  507. 

Tho  rule  docs  not  apply  to  unproductive  lands.  Shields  r.  Bog- 
liolo,  7  Mo.  134. 

A  grantee,  in  case  of  constructive  fraud,  is  not  responsible  for  profits. 
When,  however,  there  is  actual  fraud,  the  grantee  may  be  charged  with 
profits.     Backhouse  v.  Jetts,  1  Brock,  500. 

There  is  nc  instance  of  any  reimbursement  or  indemnity  aflbrdcd  by  a 
court  of  equity  to  a  particcps  criminis  in  a  case  of  positive  fraud  upon 
creditors.  Sands  r.  Codwisc,  4  Johns.  33G;  Borland  r.  AValker.  7  Ala.  2G9; 
White  r.  Graves,  7  J.  J.  :>Lirsli.  523:  Weedon  r.  Ilawes.  10  C  t.  50. 


:)X 


REMr.niKS. 


the  property  mufit  he  pit  oft'  nj^'nin.-t  ilir  allownncep  f«»r  perma- 
nent   improvements.       Tlie     p:irty    in     ].(.ssc'>-f-i(«ii     nni.-t    also 
neeount  li>r  all   nnts  ri-crivcd  \<y  liim  and  ItT  all  j)n)lits,  such 
as  moneys  arisin*^  from  the  Kile  of  timher,  or  from    Morkin^ 
mines,  with    interest  thereon,  from  the  times  of  the  receipt 
thereof.     lie  must  also  pay  an  occupation  rent  for  siich  part  of 
the  estate  as  may  have  hem  in  his  actual  possession.*     Allow- 
ance for  lastiufif  imju-ovements  can  only  be  for  such  as  were 
made  durinji:  the  period   of  accounting!:  for  tlie  nuts.'      The 
account  of  rents  and  jirofits  on   the  one  side,  and  of  lasting 
improvements  on  the  cither,  must  he  carried  hack  t..  the  same 
time.'     The    di'crec   is   erroneous   if  it   directs   the  acct»unt  of 
rents   and    i)rolits   to  he<,'in  at  one  time,  and  the   account  of 
lastiui?  improvements  at  another,  unless  there  is  some  special 
reason  for  doing  so.*     The  party  in  i)ossession  would  also,  it  is 
conceived,  he  reriuired  to  reinstate  premises  which  he  had  ma- 
terially altered  ;  c.  g.  a  private  residence  into  a  shop." 


»  Snvnge  r.  Tnylor.  Forn-st,  204 ; 
AttJJen.  r.  Biilliol  Collc'<je.  '.>  Mod. 
412;  York  r-uiKliiifjs  Co.  v.  M'Kt'nzio, 
:{  I'nt.  Sc.  Ajip.  ("a.  U'.tS,  r.Tft.IJ  Koss'b  L. 
C.  Sc.  liO'i;  Wnnl  r.  llnrtpolc,  cit.  3 
Uli^jh,  470;  Kx-parU  Ilii;;lics,  6  Yes. 
git';  Kx-]>artf  licnnett,  ID  Vl-s.  K81  ; 
Murrny  v.  Tnlmor,  2  Sch.  &.  Lef.  IHO; 
Ldwanla  v.  M'Clcay.  Coop.  :i<i8,  2  Sw. 
2.S7;  iJoiioviin  v  Frickcr,  Jnc.  Ifi.'i; 
Trcvtlvaii  I'.  (  liartcT.  4  L.  J.  <  li.  N.  S. 
214  ;  'irevdviiti  f.  Wliite  1  Iknv.  SSS ; 
Mulliollin  «.  Murum.  :J  Dr.  A  Wur.S:;?; 
(;il.M)n  t'.  irilstf,  2  Y.  tt  (".  {".  C.  BSl ; 
Millr.  Hill,  :i  11.  L.  b'JH;  Duvcy  v  \h\v- 
rant,  1  D.  i  J.  &M  ;  Tyrrell  v.  JJuuk  of 


London,  10  TT.  L.  2^;  Stopnev  v.  Bid- 
diili.h,  i:?  W.  K.  i-)7») ;  .'.  N.  "U.  506; 
l)aliy  V.  Woiiliain,  lili  Bcav.  102.  Seo 
Ihiuyjlns  I'.  Culvcrwfll.  31  L.  .1.  I'll. 
.')4;{;  Cooper  v.  I'hibbs,  L.  U.  2  Ai)p. 
Cn.  171. 

'  Att.-Gen.  t'.  Karl  of  Craven,  21 
Bonv.  411. 

•  Nocsoni  I'.  Clarkson,  4  Hn.  103. 

*  11).  See  ns  to  allowance  for  im- 
provonu-nt.s  of  cliarily  jiropi-rty,  Alt.- 
(icn.  c.  Ki-rr,  2  licav.  42'.i;  Alt.-LJoii.  i'. 
MiuxdiiKn  Coll.-c.  18  Boav.  264;  Att.- 
(u-n.  r.  Davcy.  W*  Buav.  r.27. 

'  I'onovan  v.  Frickcr,  Jac.  105. 


RcimlmrBcmcnt  may  be  nllowid  wJun  there  is  only  conslnulivo  and 
no  nctu'il  fnUHl.  (Jardincr  Hank  r.  ■Wheat on,  H  (;reeiil.  \\T.\\  I'arker  r. 
ll«>lnie»,  2  llill'B  Ch.  1)5;  Cumininj^H  r.  McCulloui:li,  .1  Ala.  \VH. 

If  ft  party  hn«  nllowcd  IiIh  nnnie  to  be  used  in  a  fraudulent  urwi-^Timcnt, 
and  t<ull<n<l  the  property  to  be  mpiandcred,  he  will  be  ronipelled  to 
nccount  for  its  value  to  the  crc<litor4.     Iluglics  r.  Bloomer,  9  Puige,  209. 


REMEDIES.  ^7 

Tlic  vjilno  of  ]U'nii;iii(iit  and  siili-tantial  iin]irovomontfi  of 
all  kinds,  l»v  wliifli  tlic  jirc-cnt  vaJiK;  of  tlio  ]»ri)]MTtv  is  ini 
]trit\ (.'<!,  Hiu'h  as  lor  tho  erec'ti<»n  of  a  man-ion  liunsc,  ami  I'ur 
plantations  of  islinibs,  will  be  allowed.'"'  l'»nt  no  allowance' 
will  be  made  for  moneys  wlucli  liave  been  expended  by  tlie 
party  in  possession,  as  a  matter  of  taste  or  ])ersonal  enjoy- 
ment.^ Kor  will  allowance  be  made  for  moneys  wliidi  liave 
been  exj)ended  upon  the  property  witli  tlie  view  of  renderinL' 
it  impossible  for  the  real  owner  to  recover  his  estate,  and  so 
improvin<5  him  out  of  it,  as  it  may  be  called.^ 

A  purchaser  who  seeks  to  set  aside  a  transaction  on  the 
gronnd  of  fraud,  should  specially  ])i-ay  in  his  bill  for  the  repay- 
ment of  repairs  and  improvements.  lie  will  be  credited  with 
the  amount  of  repairs  and  improvements,  executed  before  the 
discovery  of  the  defect  in  title,  if  their  repayment  is  specially 
prayed  by  the  bill;*  and,  probably,  of  necessary  repairs  exe- 
cuted during  or  pending  litigation,  if  specially  prayed.' 

In  a  case  where  a  purchase  was  set  aside  for  fraud,  and  the 
purchaser  was  decreed  to  pay  an  occupation  rent,  receiving 
back  his  purchase  mone3's  with  interest,  there  being  a  consider- 
able excess  of  the  rent  over  the  interest,  annual  rests  were 
directed,  until  the  principal  should  be  liquidated;^  but  a 
special  case  must  be  shown  to  warrant  such  a  direction.' 

'  York  Bnildinccs  Co.  v.  SI'Kenzie,  3  Stepney  v.  Biddulph,  6  N.  R.  505,  IS 

Pat    Sc.   App.  398,  579 ;    3  IIosi?.  L.  C.  W.    R.    r.76,    Sugj.   V.   «fe  P.  287.     See 

So.  305  ;    Stepney  v.  Biddulph,    1 3  W.  Pelly  v.  Bascombe,  4  Giff.  liOO. 

R.  57ti,  f.  N.  K.  506.  '  See  Edwards  v.  M'Cleav.  2  Sw.  289. 

"  York  Buildinirs  Co.  v.  ^il'Kenzie,  3  »  Sug.  V.    &,   P.  279 ;    Dart.  V.  »k  I' 

Pat.  Se.  A  p.  :;98,  579,  3  Ross.  L.  C.  Sc.  523. 

305;    Att.-Gen.   c.  Kerr,  2  Beav.  429  ;  '  Donovan  !•.  Fricker,  .lac.  lO.'i. 

Mill  V.  Hill,  3  ir.  L.  828.  '  See  Neesom  v.  Clarkson,  4  Ua.  97. 

*  Kcuuey   v.   Brown,   3   Ridg.   518; 


*  Michoud  V.  Girod,  4  How.  503 ;  Loan,-  r.  Cnx,  2  Dana,  469. 

Losses  incurred  in  making  improvements  and  constructing  works  in  a 
saltpetre  cave  which  has  been  misrepresented,  can  not  be  allowed.  Pey- 
ton V.  Butler,  3  Uey,  141. 


:ms 


ri:mki)1i:s. 


It  is  not  tlu'  (•(tuisc  111"  the  cimrt  tt»  diri'ct  an  account  of  wil- 
ful iu'::U'ct  and  default,  in  cases  wliere  tlie  possession  is  not 
primarily  nMiTahle  to  the  character  of  niort'^airee.*  "When 
persons,  thouirh  in  fact  inorfirairees,  enter  into  ]i(i><cssion  of 
rents  and  ju-oiits  in  another  character,  they  cannot  he  suhjected 
to  that  special  liahility.^  The  rule  may  he  dillerent  if  a  special 
case  of  fraud  he  made  out.' 

If  there  has  heen  loni;  di-lay  in  iiliii::,'  the  liill,  tlie  ac- 
counts of  rents  and  profits  Avill  he  limited  to  the  time  of  lilini; 
the  bill/* 

If  the  transaction  complained  of  is  one  in  which  a  tnistee 
or  agent,  employed  to  purchase,  lias  sold  ]>ro]>erty  of  ids  own 
surreptitiously,  to  his  ctstul  que  trust  or  j>riiifipal,  the  right 
of  the  hitter  is  not  merely  to  rescind  the  contract  in  tofo,  or  to 
abide  by  it  in  its  integrity,  hut  to  hold  the  ])roperty,  and  to 
pay  no  more  for  it  than  the  trustee  or  agent  himself  had  paid.' 
If  the  agent  sells  to  his  principal  proj^erty  of  his  owti  for 
which  he  has  paid  nothing,  the  ])rinc'ipal  can  oidy  retain  tlic 
property  upon  the  terms  of  paying  its  proper  value.® 

If  the  trustee,  or  other  person,  filling  a  fiduciary  character, 
has  purchased  surreptitiously  from  the  person  towards  whom 
Le  stands  iu  such  relation,  and  the  latter  does  not  wish  for  a 


'  Murray  v.  Palmer,  2  Scli.  it  Lof. 
48f>;  Trmelvaii  i:  t'liartcr,  4  L.  J.  Cli. 
N.  S.  til  i ;  Muriiliy  r.  U'Slica,  2  J.  <fe 
L.  4J2;  SlicTwin  /•.  Sliakesi)e«re,  fi  I>. 
il.  A  G.  Ml  ;  Lord  Kt-iisini^ton  v.  IJou- 
vcrii-.  7  I>.  M.  it  (J.  lai.  lOtl.  157;  I'ar- 
kiii.s»n  •.  II anbury,  2  1>.  J.  <t  S.  450. 
See  decree  in  (irertic}'  v.  Mxuslcy.  4  I). 
«k  J.  lUl ;  but  Bee  decree  in  .Murray  r. 
Palmer,  2  Sch.  «t  Lef.  4H'J  ;  Gilwun  r. 
D'Ebte,  2  Y.  ±  C.  V.  C.  5S1. 


"  Parkinson  f.  ITanburv,  L.  R.  2  Ann. 
Ca.  1. 

'  Howell  V.  Howell.  2  M.  <t  C.  478; 
Adnnis  r.  Swordi-r,  2  I).  .1.  «k  S.  41  ; 
Parkinson  v.  Hanbury,  L.  U.  2  App.  Co, 
15. 

*  Pickett  V.  LojTijoii,  14  Ven.  2:11  ; 
Miilhallen  v.  Maruin,  ','>  Dr.  ik  War.  :U7. 

'  liunk  of  London  v.  Tyrrell,  lo  H 
L.  2f.. 

"  (treat  Lnxemhurg  Railway  Co.  v. 
Mognay,  25  Bcav.  5'J5. 


*  When  nn  nccotint  ronsistH  of  iiiiiiktuii*^  items  n>-t-i  urv  proper  substi- 
tntca  for  n  conij)Utatiou  of  iuterest  on  each  item.  Ilanliii;,' >'.  llnndy,  11 
Wli' lit.  lO'i. 


rvi:Mi:i)ii:R.  ;j49 

reconveyance  of  the  prupcit v,  tlie  Innncr  will  he  held  strictly 
to  liis  bar^'uiii,  it'  it  he  l)eiielicial  to  llie  e.stute.  If  it  he  nut 
bencficiiil  to  the  estate,  the  property  will  ]>c  ordered  to  he  re- 
sold and  reconveyed  to  another  purchaser,  if  a  better  can  be 
found  ;  otherwise,  he  wnll  be  held  to  his  purchase;  if  a  better 
purchaser  be  found,  lie  will  be  re<4:arded  as  a  trustee  for  the 
profit  on  the  resale,^  and  will  he  held  responsible  for  any  loss 
which  Lis  interference  with  the  sale  may  liave  occasioned.^  In 
a  case  where  an  estate  sold  under  a  decree  of  the  court  was 
IJurchased  by  a  solicitor  in  the  cause  without  leave  of  the  court, 
the  court,  after  the  purchase  had  been  confirmed,  ordered  the 
estate  to  be  again  oflTered  for  sale  at  the  price  at  which  he  had 
purchased  it ;  and,  if  there  should  be  no  higher  price,  that  he 
should  be  held  to  his  purchase.^  In  Williamson  v.  Seaber,* 
where  permanent  improvements  had  been  made,  the  estate 
was  put  up  at  its  improved  value,  subject  to  the  question 
whether  he  should  be  allowed  the  value  of  such  improvements. 
But  the  usual  course  is  to  order  that  the  expense  of  repairs 
and  improvements,  not  only  substantial  and  lasting,  but  such 
as  have  a  tendency  to  bring  the  estate  to  a  better  sale,  after 
making  an  allowance  for  acts  that  deteriorate  the  value  of  the 
estate,  shall  be  added  to  the  purchase-moneys,  and  that  the 
estate  shall  be  put  up  at  the  accumulated  sum.^  If  the  trustee, 
or  other  person  filling  a  fiduciary  character,  who  has  purchased 
property  surreptitiously  from  the  person  towards  whom  he 
stands  in  such  relation,  has  resold  the  property  at  a  profit,  he 
must  account  for  such  profit  with  interest.^ 

'  Ex-parte  Rej'nolds,    5  Ves.    T07 ;  '  Ez-parte  Reynolds,  5  Ves.  YOV ;  £x- 

Ex-parlc  Hughes,  6  Ves.  017;  Rantlall  parte  Lacey,  6  Ves.  625,  629;  Ex  parte 

V.    Erriiifrton,    10   Ves.  428;   Ex-partc  Bennett,  10  Ve?.  381. 

Mor{:;an,  12  Yes.  6;  Ex-parle  Lewis,  1  "  Fo.\  v.  Macreth,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  400; 

Gl.  «feJa.  69.  Hall   «•.  Ilailctt,    1   Cox,   134;    ExjntrU 

'  Ex-parle  Lewis,  ib.  Reynolds.   5   Ves.   707 ;    Brookman   v. 

•Sidney   v.    Ranijer,    12    Sim.    118.  Rothschild,  3  Sim.  153;    Rothschild  r. 

See  JN'elthorpe  v.  rennyman,  14  Ves.  Brookman,    2     Dow  &  CI.    188.     Se« 

517.                                   '  Bank  of  London  v.  Tyrrell,    10  11.  1^ 

♦a  Y.  <fc  C.  717.  26. 


o."iO 


Ki:. mi:  DIES. 


In  ;i  case  where  a  servant  took  iin  agreement  for  a  lease  of 
premise*  in  liis  o\vn  name,  ])nt  really  as  tlieai^cnt  of  his  master, 
ami  haviiii,'  after\\:ir<Is  (K'nit-d  the  ai^eney,  elaiMU'<l  to  hold  the 
premises  for  his  own  hcnetit,  hu  was  decreed  hy  the  court  to 
be  a  trustee  for  his  master.* 

Where  a  transaction  is  set  aside  on  the  j^round  of  fraud 
the  party  complaining  will  be  allowed  all  costs,  charges,  and 
expenses  properly  incurred  in  respect  of  and  incident  to  tha 
transaction,  inchuling  the  costs  of  conveyance.^ 

In  taking  the  accounts  between  the  parties,  interest  at  the 
rate  of  £'i  per  cent,  per  annum,  will  be  allowed  on  all  moneys 
expended  in  lasting  and  substantial  improvements  by  the  party 
in  possession.  The  same  rate  of  interest  will,  as  a  general 
rule,  be  debited  to  him  in  respect  of  moneys,  ct:c.,  &c.,  received 
by  him,  and  of  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incnrred 
by  the  comjilaining  party.*  If,  bowever,  there  has  been  a 
breach  of  duty,  and  violation  of  trust,  he  will  be  debited  w'itli 
interest  on  moneys  received,  or  profits  made  by  him,  at  the 
rate  of  £5  per  cent."*  W  there  has  been  negligence  on  the  part 
of  the  complaining  party,  interest  will  not  be  allowed.* 

In  ordinary  cases,  when  the  court  sets  aside  a  transaction, 
the  defendant  has  a  right  to  insist  upon  an  account  before  he 
is  called  \ipon  to  reconvey  ;**  but  a  delendant  wlio  is  in  i>os- 

'  Enri  of  Stamford  v.  Dawson,  15  W.  I'.rowm'.   2  Coll.  I<i7;  Att.-Gcn.  t>.  Al- 

R  g.|f,,  fuid.  1  D.  M   it  (!.  8i:{ ;  Mayor,  Ac.  of 

»  KtlwanlH   V.    M'Cleoy,   2  Sw.  289;  I'.crwick  v.  Murray,  7  D.  M.\t  T,.  r.ia; 

Bcrrv     i'.    Armitstcnd,    2    Koen,    221;  and   is   homftimts   ovcii  now  allowed; 

.Mulliidl.n    i:    Maniin.    '.i   Dr.   it   War.  Stcpnoy  r.  I>iddtd].li,  115  W.  R.  576. 

:il7;   (Jilison  v.  D'Ksto,  2  Y.  i  C.  C.  C.  *  IJcnson   v.  IK-alhorn,    1  Y.  it  0.  C. 

681-    Slim  V.  Crourlicr.   1    D.    K.  it  .1.  C.   3-ti);    Mayor,    ito.,  of    Ik-rwick   v. 

620;  Cartledfj'C  v.  Kadbourii,  11  W.  U.  Murray,  7   D.  .M.   it  Ci.  518;  IJuiik  of 

g,,4/  Loiiilon  »'.  Tyrrell.    10  II.   U  {'t'.i.     .Sec 

•Gibson  v.  D'EsU;.  2  Y.  A  C.  C.  C.  St.  Auiiyn  r.'Sinart,  L.  K.  .'.  Kq.  ISH. 

581;  Sharp    r.   L<-ach.   31    ISeav.  5i):i;  » .MVullocli  r.  Ure-ory,   1   K.   it  J. 

Maturin    ...  TrodcMnitk.  12  W.   R.   740.  2Sft. 

See  Lovell  v.  UiekH,   2  Y.  it  C  5.'.;  £5  'Murray    v.   Palmer,  2  Sili.  ife  Lcf. 

per   cent,    was   formerly   allowed,    Heo  4'.«i ;  (;ii)son  c.  D'Kste.  2  Y.  it  C.  C.  C. 

Jac.    1C<5,    nit;    »eo   ulso   Kdward.>j    v.  581 ;  Wilkinnon  v.  Fowkes,  «  llu  6a4, 


*  Miller  r.  Colton,  5  Geo.  841 :  13ibb  v.  Pratlicr,  1  Bibb,  313. 


REMEDIES.  351 

session  uiulor  a  prctcii(kMl  pm-chasu  cannot,  if  tlio  courL  h-liall 
1)0  of  oj)iiii(»ii  tliat  tliL'rc  lias  ht'cu  in  fact  no  jmi-cliase,  iiiKist 
upon  an  account  of  moneys  paid  by,  or  owing  to  liiin,  which  lie 
alleged,  but  failed  to  prove,  was  the  consideration  agreed  upon 
for  such  purchase.*  If  a  reconveyance  is  ordered,  and  an  ac- 
count of  rents  and  }):iyinent  of  the  balance  is  ordered,  but  no 
lien  fur  such  balance  is  given  on  the  estate,  the  conveyance 
must  be  made  at  otice,  withcnit  waiting  for  the  result  of  the 
accounts.^ 

In  one  case  the  purchaser,  obtaining  a  decree  for  rescinding 
a  contract,  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  was  allowed  to  follow  the 
stock  in  which  part  of  the  purchase-money  had  been  invested.' 

If  the  transaction  into  which  a  man  had  been  induced  by 
fraud  to  enter  is  a  partnership,  the  terms  of  rescission  will  be 
that  his  partner  or  copartners  repay  him  whatever  he  may 
have  paid,  with  interest  thereon,  and  indemnify  him  against 
all  claims  and  demands  which  he  may  have  become  subject  to 
by  reason  of  his  having  entered  into  the  partnership;  he,  on 
the  other  hand,  accounting  for  what  he  may  have  received 
since  his  entry  into  the  concern.* 

If  a  man  has  been  induced  by  false  representations  in  the 
prospectus  of  a  company  to  take  shares  from  the  company,  he 
is  entitled  to  recover  his  money,  and  to  have  his  name  removed 
from  the  register.^  If  he  has  received  dividends  before  dis- 
covering the  fraud,  the  terms  of  rescission  are,  that  his  name 
shall  be  removed  from  the  register,  and  that  an  account  shall 
be  taken  of  what  sums  have  been  paid  to  him  by  the  company, 
and  of  what  sums  he  has  received  with  interest  at  a  reasonable 
rate,  and  that  the  balance  shall  be  paid  to  him  with  all  costs.^ 


'•Wilkinson  v.  Fowkcs,  ib.             '  Estates  Investment   Co.,    L.  R.    3  Eq. 

'  Trcvclyan  V.  Cliarter,  9  Beav.  140.  U'l;    Fox's  Case,    37  L.   J.  Ch.   257; 

■Small  V.  AttwooU,  Younj^e,  507.  Cliester  v.  Spars:©,  Itj  W.  R.  570. 

*  Linili.  on  Part.  p.  929.  "  Kent  v.  Freehold   Land  and  Brick- 

•  Blake's  Case,  34  Beav.  639  ;  Ross  v.  making  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Eq.  598. 


iiO'2  REMKIUKS. 

Wlierc  a  person,  iii  unk'r  to  (lelVaud  liis  creditors,  lia4 
transferred  sto(;k  to  a  lietitious  person,  upon  proof  ot"  the  tact, 
it  will  Ite  orilered  that  the  tietitions  name  shall  l)e  erased  Ironi 
the  reLTistrr,  :iiid  that  t!ie  name  ntthe  real  owner  he  inserted.* 
If  a  ease  for  rescission  be  not  nnule  out,  the  i)ill  may  be 
<lismisscd,  without  ])reiudice  to  any  action  at  law  that  the 
plaintitf  may  bring.* 

If  an  instrument  be  founded  on  fraud,  there  can  be  no 
rectitication.  The  court  can  reform  an  in.^tnimcnt  «>nly  where 
its  incorrectness  arises  from  mistake,  Irom  ii^norance,  or  acci- 
dent, and  docs  not  go  to  impeach  the  general  fairness  of  the 
transaction.' 

If  a  man's  name  has  been  placed  on  the  register  of  share- 
holders of  a  company,  without  his  consent,  through  the  false 
representations  of  a  third  party,  and  an  order  to  wind  up  the 
company  has  been  subsecpicntly  made,  the  court  will  order  it 
to  be  removed  from  the  register.* 

In  cases  where  a  man  has  fraudulently  appropriated  to 
his  own  use  money's  belonging  to  another,  the  apjtropriate 
remedy  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  is  by  declaring  him  a 
trustee  of  such  moneys,  and  ordering  him  to  make  them 
good." 

A  court  of  equity  will  relieve  against  iraud  in  judicial 
])roceedings.  Jf  a  ]>;irty  has  been  in<luced  by  fraud  to  consent 
to  a  decree,  or  if  fraud  in  obtaining  a  decree  has  been  prac- 
ticed on  the  court,  the  court  will  grant  relief  on  being  sati>tied 
that  the  conduct  of  the  ])arty  Inmself  has  nnt  depri\i(l  him  oi' 
his  title  to  relief,  and  that  the  relief  can  be  given  with  lUw 
rcard  to  the  iu>t  intercuts  of  others." 

'  Orccn  V.  Ilnnk   of  Kti-lnii<l.  :f  Y.  .t  *  AV  I'ntfut  File  Co.,  JCr-parlr  White. 

('     722;    Artliur  i-.    .Mitilaiiil    Kailwuy  IS  W.  !{.  7.'>l. 

Co.,  ri  K.  it  J.  "J"  ■»  *  H.'l'"  »'•  <Jr.'i;ory.  :?1  L  J.  Ch.  '274  ; 

*  Ilnrtlill  f.  Siilmon,  ft  I>.  M.  A  (J.  :i:{.  Cliiiriloii  v.  ('ooinli-*.  I  (Jiir.  HS.'i. 

Sff!  Kvniii  r.  Hirkiii-ll,  ft  V<h.  I'.M.  *  l»iirn<Hly  v   r.twc-li.  1  Vos.  12<»,  2H5; 

'  Walt  t.  Cnivv,  2   Sch.  6i  L<'f.  .M'2.  Dnvi-iiiiort    v.    SUffonI,    b    IJoav.  G22, 

tk-C  llnrt<.l»|>  t'.  llart<n>|>,  21  D'uv    'J.'.'.i  tn/ira,  p.  i\i. 


REMEDIES.  353 

"Wlicrc  :uiv  tV.'iud  or  (•(•Iliisiuii  has  1»ccm  j.raff icc«l,  a  mlo  and 
conveyance  caiiiKif  lie  held  valid,  ahhoiiirh  thcv  liavc  the  color- 
ablo  i)roteetion  of  a  decree  of  a  court  of  ((jiiity.'  "'  'Jdie  ordern 
of  the  court  cannot,  liowcver,  he  set  a^ide  on  f,n-oiinds  less 
stronj^f  tlian  those  which  would  be  required  to  set  aside  trans- 
actions hc-tween  competent  parties.'^  To  set  aside,  on  the 
grouiiil  of  fraud,  a  decree  sigiiccl  and  eiindlcd.  actual  jiositivc 
fraud  must  be  shown.  There  must  be  on  the  i)art  of  the 
person  char<reable  M'ith  it,  the  mains  cuiimus,  the  mala  mom 
putting  itself  in  motion,  and  acting  in  order  to  take  an  undue 
advantage  for  the  i)urpose  of  actually  and  knowingly  commit- 
ting a  fraud.  The  fraud  must  be  a  fraud  Avhicli  can  be  ex- 
plained and  defined  upon  the  face  of  the  decree.  Mere  irreg- 
ularity, or  the  insisting  upon  rights  wdiich,  upon  a  due 
investigation  of  those  rights,  might  bo  found  to  be  overstated 
or  overestimated,  is  not  the  kind  of  fraud  which  will  authomc 
the  court  to  set  aside  ar  decree.^ 

Though  the  court  cannot  set  aside  the  judgment  of  a 
common  law  court  obtained  against  conscience,  it  will  consider 
the  person  who  has  obtained  the  judgment  as  a  trustee,  and 
will  decree  him  to  reconvcy  any  property  tliat  he  may  have 
become  pofsessed  of  uudci-  the  judgment,  on  the  ground  of 
laying  hold  of  his  conscience,  so  as  to  make  him  do  that 
which  is  necessary  to  restore  mattei-s  as  before.*  With 
respect  to  fines  which  liad  been  obtained  by  fraud,  the  court 
would  not  absolutely  set  aside  a  fine  so  obtained,  nor  would 

•  Colclough  v.  Bolgcr,  4  Dow.  64.  '  patcli  ,•.   Ward,  L.  R.   3  CIi   Ar.n 

Brooke  v.  Lord  Slostyn,  2  D.  J.  &.  S.       203. 
*^*^-  ■*  Bnrnesly  v.  Powell,  1  Vcs.  120,  285. 


*  Galatian  v.  Erwin,  1  Ilopk.  48. 

A  punliascr  v;\\o  has  cbtaiiud  a  decree  roscindinir  the  deed,  and 
directing  a  reconveyance  and  ri payment  of  the  purchase-money,  can  not 
eccretly  rccrrd  a  deed  of  conveyance  and  sell  the  properfv  "under  an 
execution,  without  delivering  possession.      Buckncr  r.  Forkcr,  7  Dana, 


CO. 


."..")!  REMKDIKS. 

it  pciul  tlic  ]>:irty  nir^'rii'Vid  to  the  cnuit  «»t'  Citiiiiiioii  Pleas 
to  get  it  vacated.  The  (•(•iirse  of  the  court  was,  to  cniisidcr  all 
persons  takiiii^  an  estate  uiuKr  llic  line,  with  imtici-  dt'  the 
Iraiid,  as  trustees  I'ur  the  i>arty  lictVauded,  and  to  decree  u 
reeonveyanee  of  the  hind,  on  tlie  general  gmund  of  laying 
hold  of  the  conscience  of  the  i)arties  to  make  them  do  that 
which  was  neces>ai-y  lor  restoring  matters  tu  their  former 
position.^ 

Though  a  court  of  equity  has  no  jurisdiction  to  relieve 
against  fraud  in  obtaining  the  setting  up  or  execution  of  a 
will,^  it  may  relieve  against  a  prohate  obtained  1)V  fraud  by 
converting  the  party  taking  under  the  instrument  into  a  trustee 
for  the  party  defrauded.^ 

"The  cases,'' said  Lord  J.yndhurst,  in  Allen  ?'.  Macj>her- 
6on,*  "  in  which  this  court  has  declared  a  legatee  or  executor 
to  be  a  trustee  for  other  persons,  liave  been  cases  in  which 
there  have  been  either  (piestions  of  construction,'  or  cases  in 
which  the  party  has  been  named  as  trustee,  or  has  engaged  to 
take  as  such,*  or  in  which  the  Court  of  Prol)ate  C(»uld  atford 
no  adequate  or  ])roper  remedy."  '  A  legacy  given  to  a  j>erson 
in  a  character  which  the  legatee  does  not  till,  and  by  the 
fraudulent  assumption  of  which  character  the  testator  has  been 
deceived,  will  not  take  effect.  A  false  character,  however, 
attributed  by  a  testator  to  a  legatee,  will  n(tt  alfect  the  validity 
of  the  legacy,  unless  the  false  character  has  been  ac<pured  l»y 
a  fraud  which  deceived  the  testator.* 

A    charter  which    has   bi-i-n    obtained    from    the   crown   by 

•  fVuScc  Diff.  tit.  X  X  X  V.  c  xiv.  i:  1  J.  Mil.  I..  '2\i. 

Sie   rickctt   r.   lA>i:K*>n.    H  Vi-h.   UUI;  '  K.  im.ll  r.  .\l)l)otf.  4  Vtvs.  K02. 

}Inm|>MMi  V.  Iliiiii|i!«>n,   .H  V.   «1:   IJ.   12;  *Tli\i)n  i-.  Tliynn,  1  Vrni.  '2l»<5 ;  Kcn- 

!jint,'l<v  f.  FihIht,  '.»  I  «'nv.  Umi;  Turlf-  m-U  i:  Al)liiitt.  4  Vot.  h(>'.i ;  I'oilmoro  r. 

U,u  >.  f,i(l<l«ll,  17  l^  H.  Jit.  (Jimnin;;,  7  Siiii.    OtWt;  tupra,  p.   '271, 

•  All'-ri  »•.  SIuiijluTNm,    1  II.  I^  I'Jl  ;  'J7.'>. 

mjir.i,  p.  -H.  '  •'^"■•'  Scernvo  v.  Kirwiin.  llciit.  157  ; 

•  iJarii'-li-y   f.   Towfll.   1    Vi-n.  2s7;       Clmrlton  i-.  Citoml).-).   ■»   (;iir  JIM.'. ;   Wil 
All<n  r.  Alnc'|.licrit<.ri,    1   I'ii.  H.">;    1  H         kiiii«..n  i»  .lonu'liin,   L.  U. '2  Kq.  319. 

L.  213.  '  <jilf»  r.  (jlK's,  1  Keen,  C'.fi. 


REMKDIKS.  .355 

fraud,  may  l»c  rcin-alcd  by  sei.fa.  ;  l»nl  so  lon<^  as  it  rcinains 
uiircpi-alrd,  its  validity  caiiiiot  l»e  disjuitcd.' 

Tlio  a])[)roi)riatu  remedy  of  the  Court  of  Cliancery  a<;;ain6t 
fraud  may,  under  the  peculiar  circumstance  of  the  case,  Ite  by 
way  of  injunction.  An  injunction  may  he  had  either  to 
restrain  proceedings  at  law  ujxin  an  instrument  whicli  is 
vitiated  hy  fraud,  or  to  restrain  a  man  from  doing  acts  which 
amount  to  a  fraud,  in  the  extensive  signiiication  in  which  that 
term  is  understood  by  a  court  of  equity.  Although  a  man 
may  have  a  good  defence  at  hiw  to  an  action  on  an  instrument 
Avliich  is  vitiated  hy  li-au(],he  is  not  }»recluik'<l  from  proceeding 
in  equity  to  restrain  the  action.^  If  there  be  an  equitable  case 
stated  hy  the  bill,  there  is  jurisdiction  to  interfere  l)y  way  of 
injunction,  if  necessarj^,  and  also  by  way  of  ordering  the 
instrument  to  be  delivered  up.^  * 

In  restraining  by  injunction  acts  which  are  fraudulent  in 
the  sense  of  a  court  of  equity,  the  court  exercises  a  most 
extensive  jurisdiction.  Injunctions  may  be  had  upon  a  proper 
case  being  made  out,  to  restrain  a  man  from  parting  with  or 
transferring  property,  or  paying  or  receiving  moneys,  <fec.,  &c.,* 
from  negotiating  securities,^  from  selling  property,®  Szc,  &c. 

'  See  Macbride  i'.  Lindsny.  0  Ila.  574.  '  Traill  v.  Baring,   33  L.  J.  Cli.   527, 

See  as  to  setting  aside  letters  patent  nee  Turnur,  L.  J.  sM/jra,  p.  47  ;  Kerr  on 

obtained  by  fraud.  Att.-Gen.  v.  Vernon,  Inj.  ":]. 

I  Vern.  V,(V:i.  *  Kerr  ou  Inj.  595. 
*  Fernyhough  v.  Leader,  1 5  L.  J.  Ch.  *  J/>. 

458;  London  Assurance  Co.   v.  M<ises,  '76.592. 

II  L.  T.  532. 

*  Possession  alone  is  a  protection  against  a  title  ol)taine(l  by  fraud. 
Niles  V.  Anderson,  5  How.  (3Iiss.)  3G5. 

A  party  seeking  to  enjoin  a  jiulgnu'nt  upon  a  fraudulent  contract,  must 
assign  reasons  why  the  defence  was  not  made  at  law.  Allen  r.  Ilopson,  1 
Freem.  27G. 

A  party  may  be  enjoincMl  from  claiming  more  under  a  deed  than  would 
pass  according  to  his  representations.     Hardiug  v.  Randall,  15  Me.  333. 

If  on  account  of  a  contract  between  A  and  B.  A  gave  his  note  to  C. 
who  is  a  creditor  of  B.  A  can  not  be  relieved  from  his  note  because  of  a 
fraud  connnitted  by  B  in  his  contract  with  A.  Williamson  r.  Hanney,  1 
Frccm.  Ch.  112. 


S«»,  alsii,  iiijiiiK'tiuns  may  \>v  liml  to  rr-train  tlic>  jtiracy  of  tradc^ 
marks.*  So,  also,  if  a  man  lias  Ity  liis  rotuliu-t  eiicou raided 
aiintluT  to  (.xiniitl  moiK'vs  «.in  jiroprrty,  <»r  (U-al  in  a  matter  of 
interest,  a  court  of  e<|uity  will  restrain  him  fn»m  tlero^atiiiii; 
from  the  interest  in  which  that  other  has  heen  in<!:ue(l  to  deal, 
or  from  enforcing  his  legal  right  against  him,  unless  the  latter 
has  received  the  benefit  which  lie  contemjdated  at  the  time  he 
was  induced  to  altir  his  condition.'  AVlicre,  accordingly,  a 
lessor,  pending  an  agreement  for  a  building  lease,  represented 
to  the  intended  lessee  that  he  could  not  obstruct  the  sea  view 
from  the  houses  to  be  built  by  the  lessee,  ])ursuant  to  the 
proposed  lease,  because  he  himself  was  a  lessee  under  a  lease 
for  '.•".»'.»  years,  containing  covenants  Avhich  restricted  him  from 
so  doing;  but  after  the  building  lease  had  been  taken,  and  the 
houses  built  upon  the  laith  of  the  representation,  the  lessor 
surrendered  his  O'JO  years' lease,  and  took  a  new  lease,  omitting 
the  restrictive  covenants,  the  court  retrained  Jiiiii,  Ity  injunc- 
tion, from  building  so  as  to  obstruct  the  sea  view.^  So,  also, 
where  on  one  of  two  jiartners  retiring  from  business,  it  was 
left  to  arbitration  to  determine  what  was  to  be  paid  to  the 
retiring  jiartner  for  the  good-will  of  the  husincss ;  and  the 
arbitrators,  <»n  the  clear  understanding  (»f  the  parties  that  the 
retiring  j>artner  would  not  set  up  trade  in  tlu'  vicinity,  allowed 
him  £'oO<)  as  his  share  of  the  g(»o(l-will,  but  the  award  was 
silent  on  the  subject  ;  the  court,  nevertheless,  ujxm  parol 
evidence  of  the  understanding  on  which  the  award  was  made, 
restrained  him  IVom  carrying  on  trade  in  tlu-  same  vicinity.* 
So,  also,  a  man  who  has  pci-iniltcd  the  owner  of  the  adjoining 
premises  to  rebuild  them  to  a  greater  height  than  they  were 
before,  and  to  alter  his  ancient  lights,  and  to  open  new  ones. 


»  Korr  on  Inj.  471-189.  '  V\ir^r,n  v.  Straltcm.  John.  '.\:><:<,  1  I). 

*  Supra,  l>.  Vlf>.  F.  .1-  .1.  r.\. 

^  *  liarriiiOD  v.  Gardiner,  2  Madd.  198. 


ui:mi:i)Ii:s.  .TiT 

will  be  restrained   hy  iiijiiMctiou    fiDiii   inlernipting  the  lights 
after  they  are  coiiiplfted.* 

Wlicre  tlic  aid  of  a  court  of  e<]uitj  is  sou^dit  by  way  of 
speeilic  perfonnance  of  a  contract,  tlic  principles  of  ctliicH 
liave  a  more  extensive  sway  tlian  wlien  a  contract  is  sought 
to  be  rescinded.  'J'lie  court  is  not  bound  to  decree  specific 
performance  in  every  case  wliere  it  will  not  set  aside  a  con- 
tract, or  to  set  aside  every  contract  that  it  will  not  specifically 
l)erform.''  When  the  rescision  of  a  contract  is  sought,  a  case 
must  be  made  out  sliowing  that  the  transaction  is  not  oidv 
unfit  to  be  acted  on  in  ecpiity,  but  is  also  unfit  to  be  acted 
on  at  law;'  but  it  does  not  follow,  though  a  contract  be  good 
in  point  of  law,  that  it  must  be  carried  into  execution  in 
eciuity.  Many  circumstances  may  operate  to  induce  a  court  of 
equity  to  refuse  its  assistance,  though  the  agreement  may 
stand  the  test  of  a  court  of  law."**  The  court  in  such  cases 
simply  refuses  to  interfere,  leaving  the  parties  to  such  conse- 
(piences  as  may  follow  from  the  legal  rights  which  the  contract 
may  have  given  them.^f  Specific  performance  rests  with  the 
discretion  of  the  court  upon  a  view  of  all  the  circumstances^ ;}: 

'  Cotchin^  V.  Bassptt,  32  Beav.    101.  ■*  Martin  r.  Alitchell,  2  J.  <fe  W.  420; 

SeerurtlR'r,.s»j9TO,  127-133;  Kerr  on  Inj.  Barflett  v.   Salmon,  6  D.  M.  tk  G   33- 

201-2(15.  349.  IliiTirins  v.  Sanicls.  2  .1.  <fe  11.  400. 

"  Cailman   v.    Ilornor,    18   Ves.    10;  '^  Jk'llaniy    v.    Sabine,    2    PJi.    449  • 

Vigcrs  r.  Tike,  8  CI.  <fc  Fin.  645;  Wilde  Myers  c.  Watson,  1  Sim.'  \.  S.  529. 
;•.   Gibson,   1   II.  L.  f)07;  Rawlins  v.  "MVliite  v.  iJamon,  7  Ves.  33;  Rad- 

Wicldiam,  3  D.  &  J.  322.  cliffe    v.    Warrin;^ton,    12   Ves.'  331  • 

'  Yitrers   v.  Pike,  8  Cl.  &  Fin.  645.  Falcke  i:  Gray,  4  Drew,  f.59 ;   Watson 

See  Willau  v.  Willan,  2  Dow.  275.  v.  Marstun,  4  D.  M.  <fc  G.  230.' 


*  Henderson  r.  Hays,  2  Watts.  148  ;  McWhorter  v.  McMahon,  1  Clarke, 
400 ;  Frisby  v.  Ballanee,  4  Scam.  289 ;  Gould  v.  "Womark,  2  Ala.  8:1. 

t  King  V.  Hamilton,  4  Pet.  311;  Eastland  r.  Vanarsdale,  :3  Bibh.  274; 
Rice  e.  Rawlings,  :Mcigs,  406 ;  Hull  v.  Ro<.s,  ;J  Hoy,  200. 

I  Pratt  r.  Carroll,  8  Cranch.  471 ;  Rcinicker  r.  Smith.  2  II.  i^:  .1.  421 ; 
Perkins  r.  Wright,  3  11.  &  McII.  324 ;  Lciiih  v.  Cnimi),  1  Ircd.  Eq.  201) ; 
Clitherall  r.  Ogilvic,  1  Dessau.  256. 

A  court  of  equity  will  not  set  up  a  deofl  which  has  been  suppressed  as 


.>.».s  iii:.Mi:iiii:s. 

ami  wifli  MM  I've  to  tlio  siibstiuitial  justici'  of  the  caso.'  *  AVlierc 
a  ]>arty  calls  lor  specific  j)erroriiian('c,  lie  must,  as  to  every 
]>art  ot'  the  transact  ion,  l)e  tree  tVoin  cNfry  iiii|iiitation  ot'  train! 
or  deceit.  An  ai^reenient  aU'ected  l»y  misrepresentation,  or 
tainted  hy  deceit,  is  incapable  of  beinj^  made  the  subject  ot'tho 
interference  of  a  court  of  ctpiity  in  order  to  c<»mpel  its  specific 
jierformance.'f  Tlierc  can  be  no  s])ecific  performance  if  a 
material  and  ini[iortaiit  fact  be  untruly  stated.^  It  is  no 
answer,  in  a  suit  for  s])ecific  j)erformance,  to  the  fact  of  the 
]>laintitF  liaviniij  made  a  false  representation,  to  say  tliat  the 
defendant  was  imjirudcnt.  A  man  wlu*  calls  for  sjtecific  per- 
formance must  be  able  to  show  that  his  conduct  has  been 
clear,  honorable,  and  fair.*  It  is  a  princi[)Ie  in  e([uity  that  the 
court  must  see  its  way  very  clearly  before  it  will  decree 
specific  performance,  and  that  it  must  be  satisfied  as  to  tlie 
intcij^rity  and  *]jood  faith  of  the  party  seeking;  its  interference.' 
Misrepresentation  as  to  a  small  ])ortion  only  of  t!ic  jiroperty, 
the  subject  of  the  contract,  will,  if  the  misrepresentation  is 
intentional,  prevent  a  man  from  comini^  to  the  court  to  have 

'  King  V.  Hamilton,  4  Peters  ( Amcr.),  :i  1).  F.  A  J.  718 ;  Colby  v.  Gr.dsden,  16 

I'.ll.  W.  U.  1185. 

'  Harris  v.  Kemblo.  7  L.  J.  Cli.  83;  5  '  IVico  «-.   Macniilav.  2  1>.   M.  ,t  G. 

IJIIkIi.   7:i<>.     Sen  I'liilipps  v.  Duko  of  330. 

IJuckH.    1   Vern.  227;   Kllanl   v.  Lord  M'ox   v.    MicKlUton.   2   Dn-w.    220; 

Llnn.iafT.  1  Ho.  A  lit-.  211;   Un-nloy  t-.  Walters  r.  Morijiui,  3  1)  F.  it  J.  718. 
Collins,  You.  317;  Walter.-i  v.  Mori^an,  *  Jircalev  i;  (."oliiiis.  You.  327;   Wal- 

ters I-.  Mor-jun,  3  D.  F.  &  J.  718. 


II  ju'^tifiable  pruard  npainst  fraud  and  injustice  meditated  against  the 
g^rantor.     Chapman  r.  Chapman,  4  Call,  430. 

When  a  vendor  lias  fraudulently  led  a  vendee  to  suppose  that  more 
land  would  p!L«H  und<r  a  dceil  llian  did  pas^,  he  may  Ik*  conipt'ilcd  to  give 
II  deed  for  the  n-siduc.  Wiscrall  r.  Hall,  :{  Paige,  31:1;  Tyson  r.  Passmore, 
3  Harr.  122. 

♦  Western  U.  R  Co.  r.  Hal)eo(k,  0  iMct.  810;  Quick  r.  Stuyvcsant,  2 
Paige,  81;  Hopkins  r.  Stunjp.  2  H.  it  J.  :!01 ;  Klli-s  r.  Ilurdcn,  1  .\la.  l^si. 

t  Thompson  r.  Tod,  Pet.  C.  C.  :t80 ;  Slack  r.  McLagan.  lo  111.  242; 
Clement  r.  Hrid,  9  Snied.  &,  .Mar.  .'>:].>;  Fuller  r.  Perkins,  7  Oliio,  llKi;  Cur- 
bcny  r.  Tannehill,  1  H.  ii  J.  224. 


KEMKDIES.  359 

till"  contmct  enforced.  It  is  not  hiifliciciit  lliat  iIm;  vcikIi.i- 
ollrr  to  waivi'  tlii'  i)ortioTi  afrrcted  by  tlio  representation.!  The 
elJect  of  a  partial  niisreprcficntation  is  not  to  alter  or  modify 
tlie  ai^recnient  pm  tanto^  but  to  destroy  it  entirely,  and  to 
operate  as  a  personal  bar  to  the  party  making  the  a])]»lication.^ 
Misrepresentation  of  a  material  fact,  although  innocently  made, 
will  be  a  bar  to  the  application.^  If  a  ])rospectus  be  issued 
containing  material  i-epresentations,  and  a  person  accepts 
shares  on  the  faith  of  the  representations,  the  party  who  made 
the  representations  cannot,  if  they  prove  to  be  untrue,  compel 
the  other  I'arty  to  accejjt  the  shares,  although  he  believed 
what  he  stated  to  be  true.*  It  is  a  defence  to  a  bill  for  sj)eciiic 
performance  that  the  plaintift'  has  made  inaccurate  re])resenta- 
tions  with  respect  to  the  property,  the  subject  of  the  contract, 
although  these  representations  proceeded  upon  and  had  refer- 
ence to  sources  of  information  wliich  -svere  equally  open  to  all 
parties,  and  might  have  enabled  the  defendant  to  detect  the 
alleged  inaccuracies,  if  the  evidence  shows  that  they  could  not 
have  been  easily  detected.''  There  may,  however,  be  specific 
performance,  although  the  description  of  the  property,  the 
subject  of  the  contract,  be  incorrect,  if  it  appear  that  the  pur- 
chaser knew  at  the  time  of  the  purchase  that  the  representa- 
tion Avas  untrue,  or  inspected  the  property  before  making  the 
purchase,  and  so  acted  upon  his  own  judgment  in  the  matter;' 


'  VUconnt  Clermont  v.  Tasburffh.  1  '  Ilarris  v.  Kemblc,  7  L.  J.  Ch.  S.j ;  .I 

J.  tfc  W.  119,  120.  Eli:;h,  730.     See  Kawlins  v.  Wioklinm, 

'//>.     Stewart  i-.  Alliston,  1  Mer.  20.  3  D.  ct  J.  318;   Iliggins  v.  Samcls,  2  J. 

See   Rawlins   v.  "Wickham,  3  D.  <t  J.  ct  H.  4(38;  Colby  iT  Gadsden,  15  W.  11. 

321.  118.J. 

'  Ainslec  t'.  Mcdlycott,  9  A'es.  13,  21 ;  •Dyer  ;•.    Ilarirravo,   10  Vos.    505; 

Iliiririnson   v.    Clowes,    15    Ves.    524;  Grant  c.  ^lunt.  Coop.  177  ;  Lord  Brooke 

Stewart  I'.  Alliston,  1  Mer.  20;  Price  v.  v.  lloundtliwaite,  5  Ha.  :i0i>;  Ilavwood 

Macaulay,  2  D.  M.  <L'  G.  339;   Iliiririns  v.  Coi)e.  25  Beav.  140;  Clarke  r."Mack- 

f.  Saniels,  2  J.  <t  II.  400;  Comp.   \\  liito  intosh,  4  (off.  1.34;  Henderson  v.  Hud- 

I'.   Bradshaw,    10  Jur.   738;    Ilnme  v,  son,  15  W.  R.  800;  Comp.  Higgins  >•, 

Pocock.  L.  R.  1  Cli.  App.  379.  Saniels,  2  J.  it  II.  408 ;  Vivcrs  i'.  Tuck, 

'  New  Brunswick,  ic..  Railway  Co.  1  Moo.  P.  C.  X.  S.  526. 
V.  Muggeridge,  1  Dr.  <&  Sm.  363,  382. 


.■><K)  iu:mi:i)1es. 

or  if  there  avoiv  rircunhstances  in  the  case  which  (hinaiithd  fur- 
ther inve8ti<^ati(>ii,  lor  which  the  vcii<li>ratl'(»r«h'(l  every  facility  ;' 
«»r  if  the  representations  which  ha\c  hei-n  niach'  arc  vaguo  in 
their  terms,  and  merely  aninunt  to  a  statenuiit  of  valne  or 
opinion.' 

Tlierc  cannot  be  spceitic  perforinaiice  if  the  description  of 
the  property  is  of  so  nmbi<;uons  a  natiin-  that  it  cannot  with 
certainty  be  known  what  it  was  the  purchaser  inia^-incd  him- 
self he  was  contractin*^  for.^  A  vendor  of  property  who  makes 
statements  respecting  the  i)roperty,  is  bonnd  to  make  them 
free  from  all  ambiguity;  and  the  j)urchaser  is  not  bonnd  to 
take  upon  himself  the  peril  of  ascertaining  the  true  meaning 
t»f  the  statements.^  A  definite  representation  upon  a  fact 
alfecting  the  value  of  the  subject  of  sale  will  entitle  the  i)nr- 
ehaser,  if  the  representation  be  untrue,  to  resist  s])ecific  jier- 
formance.'  It  is  the  duty  of  every  vendor  to  state  all  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  witli  the  property  he  is  selling,  and  the 
incidents  to  which  it  is  subject,  in  such  a  manner  tliat  they  can 
be  understood  by  a  person  of  ordinary  intelligence,  and  not 
merely  in  such  a  way  that  only  a  skilled  lawyer  would  be  able 
to  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  title  under  mIucIi  he  is  pur- 
chasing.' If  leaseh(»ld  i)roperty,  which  is  sold  in  separate  lots, 
is  held  iniilei-  one  lease,  it  is  incumbent  on  the  vendor  to  state 
the  fact  in  j»lain  and  distinct  language.'^ 

If  there  be  unusual  covenants  in  a  lease,  and  the  seller  is 
silent  as  to  their  existence,  he  will  not  Ijc  able  to  enforce  spe- 
cific perfonnance  against  a  purchaser  buying  in  igimrance  o\' 
the  covenants.* 

•  f'lnrkn  »•.  Miukinioxli.  -l  (;ifT.  Ktl.  Drysdnlo  v.  Mncc.  r.  D.  M.  A-  O.  107; 
'  t^rott  r.  lIiinMoii,   1    It.   A-   M.   I'.'S;       Swnisliitul  »-.  I)i«ni>liv, -.".i  |5cav. -loO. 

.lr>linHon  r.  Snmrt,  'i  (iiff.  l.'il,  tiijirn,  ]>.  *  I,«ir(l  Hrookc  v.  Kipiiiitllliwnitc,  r»  Ha. 

HtJ.  h.'i.  IMi. 

'Stcwnrtr.  AlliHton.  1  M<r. 'Jf,;  I,..y.  *  Shcnnl   ••.  YeimbK's«,  30  L.    .1.  Cli. 

Untl  V.  lHiiii,'w..rtli,  'j  I>.  F.  .t  .1.  'J.'.J.  022. 

•  Mortin  v.  C'otUr.  :i  J.  A  L.  I'.h;,  r.(i7;  '  //>. 

'  Martin  v.  Cotter, .'{  J.  i  L.  500.  . 


ri:mki)1i:h.  ."Ol 

A  purcliascr  caiuiut,  liowcver,  on  tin;  application  for  Hpecili(. 
IX3rronnance,  take  advantage  of  small  circuinstanccH  of  varia- 
tion in  the  description  of  the  thing  conti-actfil  foi-.*  Altlioiigh 
the  description  of  the  property,  the  suhjcct-niatter  of  the  con- 
tract, may  be  inaccurate  in  some  particularr;,  or  may  be  differ- 
ent in  some  respects  and  in  certain  incidents  from  what  it  was 
represented  to  be,  specific  performance  will  bu  decreed  if  tlie 
property  is  not  different  in  substance  from  wluit  it  was  repre- 
sented to  be,  and  the  misrepresentation  has  been  made  inno- 
cently or  through  mistake,  and  not  wilfully,  upon  the  terms  of 
the  vendor  making  good  his  representation  or  allowing  or  giv- 
ing compensation.'^  If,  for  instance,  the  projjcrty  be  subject  to 
incumbrances  concealed  from  the  purchaser,  the  seller  may 
have  specific  performance  on  making  good  his  assertion  and 
redeeming  those  charges.  So  also,  if  the  property  is  subject  to 
a  small  rent  not  stated,  or  the  rental  is  somewhat  less  than  it 
was  represented  to  be,'  or  if  the  property  is  smaller  than  it  was 
represented  to  be,*  or  is  not  in  the  state  and  condition  in  which 
it  was  represented  to  be,^  there  may  be  specific  perfunnance  on 
tlie  terms  of  the  vendor  allowing  a  sufficient  deduction  or 
abatement  from  the  purchase-money.®  The  principle  on  which 
the  court  proceeds  in  such  cases  is,  that  if  the  ])urehaser  gets 
substantially  that  for  which  he  has  contracted,  a  slight  varia- 
tion or  deficiency  will  not  entitle  him  to  recede  from  his  con- 
tract when  compensation  can  be  made  in  money  for  the  difier- 
ence.'    A  purchaser  cannot,  however,  be  compelled,  upon  the 

'  Poolo  V.  Shersoltl,  1  Cox,  274 ;  Stew-  *  Hill  i'.  Buckley.  17  Vcs.  395  ;  Windi 

art  i'.  Alliston,  1  Men.  26.  t'.  Winchester,  1  V.  <k  B.  375  ;  I'ortinaii 

^  Ilowland  v.  Norris,  1  Cox,  69;  Drewe  v.  Mill,  2  Kuss.  670;  Kin^  v.  Wilson,  tj 

f.  Corp,  9  Ves.  3r.8  ;  Hill  v.  Buckley,  17  Beav.  124  ;  Frost  v.  Brewur.  3  Jur.  1  i'..-i ; 

Vcs.  3y4  ;  Pulsford  )■.  Richards,  17  Beav.  Avlcs  v.  Cox,  16  Beav.  23.  Comp.  Price 

87,  90;  Price  v.  ilacaulay,  2  D.  M.  6:  r. "North,  2  Y.  <k  C.  620. 

G.  314.  'Dyer  v.    Harnrravc,    10  Ves.    508; 

*  Pulsford  t'.    Richards,  17  Beav.  87,  Grant  v.    Munt,    Coop.    173;    Scott  tt. 

90,  ^rr  Lord  Romiily;  Huijhes  v.  Jones,  Hanson,  1  R.  it  M.  131. 

3  D.  F.  ifc  J.  307.     >ee  Howland  v.  Nor-  '  See  further,  I):irt,  V.  <L-  P.  691. 

ris,  1  Cox,  01 ;  Pope  v.  Garland,  4  Y.  dt  '  Howland  v.  Norris,  1  Cox,  61  ;.Dvcr 
C.  394. 

24 


362  ki:mi:i)1i:s. 

principle  of  compensation,  to  take  ponictliin^  pultstantially  or 
materially  dillcrcnt  iVniii  that  lor  wliic-h  he  cdiitracted.*  Thero 
can  be  no  spceitie  perfornianee  if  the  descriplion  Ik-  inaccurate, 
ami  the  court  feels  that  it  (aniiut  measure  the  difVerenco  be- 
tween that  which  was  i)romised  and  the  actual  fact,  bo  as  to 
found  a  ]>roper  basis  for  comj)ensation.'  If,  f«»r  example,  a  man 
has  contracted  fur  the  purchase  of  a  freehold,  he  will  nt)t  be 
compelled  to  take  a  leasehold  (though  held  for  a  very  long 
term),'  or  a  copyhold  ;*  nor  can  a  man  who  has  contracted  for 
a  coi)yhold  be  compelled  to  take  a  freehold;'  nor  will  a  man 
be  coni])elled  to  tukc  proi)erty  held  in  a  difterent  manner  from 
that  which  is  expressed  or  imi)lied  in  the  contract,  as  the 
assignment  c>f  an  underlease  instead  of  an  origimd  lease,'  or  of 
a  redeemable  instead  of  an  absolute  interest,' or  of  an  imjirovcd 
instead  of  a  ground  rent."  Nor  can  a  man  who  has  contracted 
for  an  estate  in  possession  be  compelled  to  a  reversion  expect- 
ant on  a  life  estate,®  or  on  a  subsisting  or  d  ^fortiori  a  rever- 
eionary  lease.'°  Nor  will  a  man,  who  has  been  led  by  the  rej)re- 
sentations  of  the  vendor  to  lu'lievc  that  tlie  ])i-oi)erty,  the 
Bubject  of  sale,  was  in  the  possession  of  a  tenant  of  the  vendor, 
be  compelled  to  take  a  mere  right  of  entry."  Nor  can  a  man 
he  compelled  to  take  an  estate  where  incumbrances  or  liabili- 
ties exist  which  would  materially  aifect  its  enjoyment."  The 
court  will  not  eomj)el  a  man  to  take  compensation  for  that 
which  can   hardly  be  estimated   by  ]icciiuiarv  value."     Several 


r  Unrprnvo,  10  Ves,  607;  Magennis  r.  '  Covorlcv  t".    I5urrcll,  Sug.  V,  <t  1\ 

Fnllon,  '1  Moll.  r.S8.                              .  299;  Darl.V.  <t  V.  «S'.>. 

'  I)rfw<'  f.  Corp.  9  Vf*.  308;  Mngen-  •  Stt-wart  r.  AlliKfon.  1  Mor.  20. 

o'lH  I'.  Fnllon,  2  .Moil.  .'»««.  "  CoIIut  v.  .IcnkiiiH,  You.  UUS. 

»  I^.nl  lir.M.k.r.  KouiKltliwnito.r.  Iln.  '"  Liiu-liiin    i-.  CoIUt,  7  Ir.  Eq.  176; 

29R;  Cox  I'.  C'lV.-nton.  al  lU-nv.  ;i«8.  Dnrt.  V.  «t  I*.  C,H9. 

»  hrfwc  V.  Corp,  V  \rn.  808.  "  l.iulilnn  v.  Ut-vnolds,  Kay,  t>i. 

•  Twining  v.  Morirc,  2  Hro.  C.  C.  831 ;  "  Dm  I,  V.  A  I'.  V.'.tit,  ti;»l. 

HkW    r.   riiillipH,  Vrt-v.  Cli.   675.     See  "  I;v<r    iv  Ilnrgrnvr.    K)    Vi-h.    fiO? ; 

Knrl    of  I)urhuin    r.    Li'gnnl,  lH  Hcav.  Mn^'uni'*  r.  Fnllon,  '>  Moll.  ft8S ;  Fcwb- 

(■,]•'.  t*'r  r.  'runicT.  tl  .Mir.  HI.     Sec  Kna'cli- 

•  Ayl«'H  V.  Cox,  K.  Hfftv.  23.  IjuU  v.  (Jruebcr,  1  Mndd.  l&Ii. 

•  Madcloy  r.  Uoolh,  2  Di-g.  «k  S.  718. 


kemi:dies.  363 

of  the  cases  to  T)C  foiiml  in  tlie  books  liavc  caiTi(;«l  tlic  puhject 
of  conij>eiisatiuu  fartlier  than  at  the  present  time  it  would  l)e 
carried.^ 

AVlicn  upon  the  sale  of  land,  represented  to  consist  of  a 
certain  specified  number  of  acres,  tiiere  proves  to  1)C  a  deliciency 
in  quantity,  such  deliciency  is  properly  the  subject  for  compen- 
sation, if  the  deficiency  be  not  too  great.  If  the  diiference  be 
great,  there  is  no  case  for  compensation.  The  party  prejudiced 
by  the  error  may,  if  he  pleases,  avoid  tlic  contract  ;< but  he 
cannot  have  specific  performance  unless  he  is  willing  to  perform 
the  contract  without  compensation.^ 

Conditions  of  sale  providing  for  compensation  in  cases  of 
error  or  mistake  apply  only  to  accidental  slips,  and  not  to  cases 
where  the  subject-matter  of  the  contract  is  materially  diflferent 
in  substance  from  what  it  was  represented  to  be.^ 

A  false  representation  as  to  the  value  of  property  may  be 
enough  to  induce  the  court  to  withhold  specific  performance.^ 

Merc  inadequacy  of  consideration  is  not  a  ground  for  resist- 
ing specific  performance;''*  but  if  the  inadequacy  is  very 
great,  specific  performance  will  not  be  decreed.® 

'  Ilowlandf.  Norris,  ICox,  Cl;  Pyer  Ilallctt,  L.  R.   2   Cli.  App.  20.     Comp. 

V.  Ilaijxrave,  10  Vc3.  507;  Knatchbiill  Leslie  r.  Tompson,  9  Ila.  2GS;  Painter 

V.  Grueber,  1  Madd.  15:5;  Magennis  v.  v.  Newbv,  11  Ila.  30. 

Fallon,  2  Moll.  588;  Collier  r.  Jenkins,  *  liuxton  v.  Lister,  3  Atk.  386;  Shir- 

You.  298;  Madeley  v.  Booth,  2  Deg.  &  lev  v.  Straiten,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  440;  Wall 

S.  722.  f.'Sfubbs,  1  Madd.  81. 

"  Earl  of  Durham  v.  Legard,  34  Beav.  '  Abbott  v.  Sworder,  4  Deg.  <t  S.  45G ; 

612.    See  Trice  V.  North,  2  Y,  <L-C.  620.  Bower  v.  Cooper,  2  Ila.  408;  BorcU  i'. 

'Stewart    v.    Alliston.    1   Mer.    26;  Dann, /7<.  440,  yjer  Wigram,  V.  C;  Hay- 

Shackleton  v.  Sutcliffe,  1  Deg.  <t  S.  620 ;  wood  v.  Cope,  25  Beav.  140. 

Madeley  v.  Booth,   2   Deg.   cfe  S.  722  ;  °  Falcke  v.  Gray,  4  Drew.  659. 
Ayles  V.  Cox,  16  Beav.  23;  Dimmockw. 


*  "Wlicn  the  parties  stand  upon  equal  <:roun(ls  with  equal  means  of  in- 
formation and  not  in  any  confidential  relation  and  without  any  artilicc. 
practiced,  inadequacy  is  no  ground  for  refusing  specific  performance.  Sey- 
mour r.  Delaney,  3  Cow,  44.5 ;  s.  c.  6  Johns.  Ch.  223 ;  IIarri«ion  r.  Tenn.  17 
Mo.  237 ;  Shopperd  r.  Bevis,  9  Gill.  32 ;  "Whiteford  r.  McLcod,  2  Bay.  3S0; 
Knobb  r.  Lindsay.  i5  Ohio,  572. 

If  to  any  unfairness  great  inequality  between  price  and  value  be  addad. 


liOl  UEMEDIKS. 

It  is  no  (lotfiico  to  a  Itill  lor  specific  perforinanco  by  tlio 
vendor  that  durini;  the  treaty  lie  falsely  assumed  the  character 
of  a<rcnt  for  another,  wlieii  in  tact  he  was  dcalin;;  on  his  own 
behalf,  and  that  ho  therehy  deceived  the  purchaser  as  to  the 
party  with  whom  he  was  dealing,  ])rovided  the  purchaser  docs 
not  show  that  the  dcce])tion  inducc«l  him  to  enter  into  the  con- 
tract, or  occasioned  any  loss  or  inconvenience  to  him  other- 
wise.* 

Though  a  written  agreement,  if  tliero  he  no  fraud  or  mis- 
take, binds  according  to  its  terms,  although  verbally  a  provision 
was  airrced  on  which  has  not  been  inserted  in  the  document, 
either  of  the  parties,  if  sued  in  equity  for  a  specific  ])erform- 
anco  of  the  agreement,  is  entitled  to  ask  the  court  to  remain 
ncntral,  unless  the  i>arty  suing  him  will  consent  to  the  per- 
formance of  the  omitted  tcrm.^  As,  for  instance,  when  the 
vendor  refused  to  perform  his  agent's  engagement  that  im- 
provements should  be  executed  on  the  adjoining  property  ; '  or 
when  the  lessor  of  a  house  verbally  promised  the  lessee  before 
he  executed  the  lease  to  put  the  house  into  comjilete  repair.* 
But  if  the  vendor  offer  to  perform  the  agreement  with,  if  the 
defendant  so  desire,  the  parol  variation  or  addition,  this  is  sut- 

'  FoIlowM  r.  Lord  Gwydvr.   1   R.  «k      v.  Winclio^tor,  1  V.  A- B.  378;  Martin  t-. 
M.   H-.i.     Stc  Ntltliori)e  V.   llolgatc,    1      I'ym'fl.  -  !'• -^I- '<■' <^- '^l^- 
ColL  'lo'.l  '  Myt-rs  V.  Wutsoii,  1  .Sim.  X.  8.  523, 

»  Lliirke  v.  Grant,  14  Vcs.  624 ;  Winch      62H. 

*  Chiippell  V.  Greijory,  34  Benv.  250i 


ttic  rontrart  will  mit  U-  enforced.  Catlioart  r.  Itohin'^on,  r»  Pet.  204; 
Burt<h  r.  llogi,'!'.  1  Ilarrinj,'.  Cli.  :il ;  (jarj,Mi  r.  SiikiII, '.' Strolili.  Kq.  72; 
Younj;  r.  Fro»t,  5  Gill.  2m7  ;  Trigf;  r.  Head,  T*  Humph.  rjJlK 

F'luctuatjons  in  the  value  of  properly  caiisetl  liy  cvenbi  sub.Heqiunl  to 
the  niakinf,'  of  the  contract,  are  no  j^roundH  for  nfufting  npeciflr  perfonn- 
uncc  if  it  was  fair  nt  the  time  it  wuh  ni:i«lr.  Low  r.  Tniidweil,  '.)  Kairf. 
44L 

The  HtjL^qiienl  dlHcoveri-  of  a  mine  is  not.  in  the  alisenee  of  fraud,  n 
good  t'rouiid  lor  rci'ubing  Hpeeitic  perlormancc.     Hian  c.  \  aile,  '2  ilo.  120. 


PLEADING.  ;;Gr> 

ficient,  ;ui<l  (Ik;  (lerendaiit  ciiiiiot  net  uj)  tlio  want  of  a  perfect 
written  contract.*  Spccilic  ix-rtunnaiicu  will  not,  Iiowcvcr,  be 
decreed  with  the  parol  a^'recmeiit  superinduced  upon  it,  unless 
the  party  jirajing  tor  the  specific  performance  has  conducted 
himself  with  perfect  good  faith.'' 

As,  on  the  one  hand,  a  court  of  equity  will  not,  at  the  suit 
of  a  vendor  of  property,  enforce  specific  performance  of  a  con- 
tract for  the  sale  thereof,  if  the  property  is  dilTcrcnt  in  some 
material  particulars  from  what  it  was  represented  to  be,  unless 
upon  the  terms  of  his  allowing  compensation,  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  specific  performance  of  a  contract  for  the  sale  of  prop- 
erty which  has  been  inaccurately  described  through  innocent 
mistake,  will  not  be  enforced  at  the  suit  of  the  purchaser,  un- 
less upon  the  terms  of  his  submitting  to  allow  compensation 
to  tlie  vendor.' 


SECTION   VIII.— PLEADING— PARTIES— PROOF. 
PLEADING. 
In  suits  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  impeaching  transac- 
tions on  the  ground  of  fraud,  it  is  essential  that  the  nature  of 
the  case  should  be  distinctly  and  accurately  stated.     A  mere 
general  charge  of  fraud,  without  alleging  specific  tacts,  is  not 
suflicient  to  sustain  the  bill.     It  must  be  shown  in  what  the 
fraud  consists,  and  how  it  has  been  etfected.     The  fraud  alleged 
must  be  set  forth  specifically  in  particular  and  in  detail,  so  that 
the  person  against  whom  it  is  charged  may  have  the  opportu- 
nity of  knowing  what  he  has  to  meet  and  of  shaping  his  de- 

'  Mnrtin  If.  Pycrott,  2  D.  M.  <L-  G.  785.  'Leslie    v.    Tompson,    9    Ila.  268; 

'  Walters  v.  Alorgan,   3D.  F.    >t   J       Painter  v.  Newb}-,  11  Ila.  30. 
125. 


3G6 


im.i:ai)IN(;, 


fence  acconllni::ly.'"^  I'raud  is  a  cinu-liisinn  of  law;  audit  is 
wholly  iinmattTia!  and  iiisiiUicient  to  ulli'^^e  that  an  in-tniinent 
has  been  obtained  by  tVand,  unless  the  thin^^s  done  constituting 
the  iVauU  are  stated  on  the  laee  of  the  bill.*  If  the  transaction 
sought  to  be  inijieachcd  be  between  solicitor  and  client  or  prin- 
cipal and  agent,  tlic  bill  should  allege  that  the  defendant  was 
the  solicitor  or  agent  at  the  time  of  the  purchase,  if  such  be 
the  ground  on  which  his  equity  is  based.^  If  the  case  ia  not 
so  stated  in  the  jjleadings,  evidence  to  pro\x>  it  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted.* f  In  inij)uting  fraud  against  a  man,  the  term  itself 
need  not  be  used :  it  is  sufficient  if  the  tacts  stated  amount  to 
a  case  of  fraud.' 


'  East  India  Co.  r.  Ilcnclirnnn,  1  Ve3. 
Jr.  287  ;  Small  v.  Attwdoil.  0  Cl.  tt  Fm. 
2;:3;  Wilde  v.  (.iibsoii,  1  II.  L.  r.(»7;  Sib 
81111  I'.  Edgewoith,  2  Di'i;.  tt  Sni.  ~i'.i ; 
ilunday  v.  Kiii^ht,  ',i  11a.  I'.'T ;  (^'iirzuu 
V.  lic-lworthy,  11  Jur.  lllO  ;  Chadwick  v. 
Cliadwick,  18  Jur.  B'.U  ;  Kelly  v.  llDijers, 
1  Jur.  N.  S.  f)14  ;  BotLoinley  v.  Squires, 
tV/.  094;  Baiiibridge  v.  Mo.ss,  3  Jur.  N. 
S.  58  ;  Robson  i'.  Lord  Devon,  4  Jur.  N. 
S.  245;  Irvine  v.  Kirkpatiick,  7  Bell, 
Sc.  Ap.  180;  National  E.xcliange  Co.  v. 


Drew,  2  JIncq.  120;  Smith  f.  Kay,  711. 
L.  7.")t»;  New  Brunswick,  <tc.,  Railway 
Co.  V.  Conybcare,  '.•  II.  L.  711. 

"  Gilbert  c.  Lewis,  1  D.  J.  A  S.  38, 
4'J,j>'r  Lord  Westburv. 

'  Wiiliauis  ,:  Llewellyn,  2  Y.  ck  J.  68. 

*  Jb.  See  Montesquieu  v.  Sandys,  18 
Ves.  301. 

'  Att.-Gen.  v.  Corporation  of  Poole,  4 
M.  &  C.  28;  Mar-shail  r.  Slodden,  7  Ha. 
444  ;  Bromley  v.  Smitli,  20  Beav.  071. 


*  Harding  r.  Handy,  11  "Wheat.  103;  Conway  r.  Ellison,  14  Ark.  300; 
Pendleton  r.  Galloway,  U  Ohio,  178;  Spcnce  v.  Buron,  3  Ala.  231;  Ikll  r. 
Henderson,  C  How.  (Miss.)  311. 

t  Forey  v.  Clark,  3  Wend.  037  ;  Fisher  v.  Boody,  1  Curt.  200;  Thomp- 
son t.  Jackson,  3  Kand.  504 ;  Booth  r.  Bootii,  3  Litt.  57. 

In  order  to  constitute  the  j,'round  for  relief  a<,Minst  n  contract,  frauil 
must  be  distinctly  averred,  otherwise  it  will  not  he  in  issue.  Gorivcrneur 
r.  Elmendorf,  5  Joiins.  C'h.  70;  Fitz|)atriek  r.  Biatty,  1  tJiiinaii,  45L 

When  the  hill  sets  up  a  case  of  actual  fraud,  and  makes  that  the  ground 
for  relief,  the  plaintiiT  will  not  be  entitled  to  a  decree  by  establishing  some 
of  the  facts  quite  independent  of  fraud,  but  which  miglit  of  themselves 
create  a  case  under  a  totally  distinct  head  of  equity  from  tiiat  which  would 
be  a[)i»licable  to  the  case  of  fraud  originally  stated.  Eyre  c.  Potter,  15 
lluw.  42. 

A  bill  asking  for  a  ri*scission  of  a  contract  nee«l  not  aver  th:it  tlie 
plaintitf  can  restore  the  pnipirty.     Veazie  r.  William^,  8  How.  1:54. 

An  allegation  of  the  fads  and  circumstances  constituting  fraud  is  suf- 


PLEADING.  367 

A  man  wlio  Bceks  oqiiitahle  iclief  hy  injunction  against 
IVaud  is  nut  Ixmiid  as  llu;  i)ricc  of  biicli  interference  t<j  Ijrinir 
tlie  whole  matter  into  equity.^* 

If  a  bill  charges  notice,  it  is  sullicient  to  do  so  generally, 
without  averring  facts  as  evidence  of  the  charge.  It  is  not, 
however,  necessary  to  charge  iK^tice  in  a  hill  to  wdiich  a  plea 
for  valuable  consideration  without  notice  might  be  i)leaded.^ 

A  decree  or  order  of  the  court  may  be  impeached  lur  fraud 
by  original  bill.* 

There  may  be  a  prayer  in  the  l)ill  that  certain  transactiong 
may  be  decLared  fraudulent,  and  also  an  alternative  prayer  for 
relief,  upon  the  supposition  of  such  transactions  not  being  set 
aside  on  the  ground  of  fraud.* 

It  is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  express  prayer 
in  the  bill  that  a  transaction  should  be  set  aside  for  fraud.  A 
transaction  will  be  set  aside  for  fraud,  under  the  prayer  for  gen- 
eral relief.' 

'  Stewart  v.  Great  Western  Railway  *  Bowen  v.  Evans,  2  11,  L.  280.     Seo 

Co.,  2  D.  J.  &  S.  319.  Bennett  v.  Vade,   9  Mod.   312;  Cruik- 

'  Hughes  V.  Garner,  2  Y.  «fe  C.  328.  sliank  v.  M'Viear,  8  Buav.  100. 

*  Brooke  i'.  Lord  Mostyn,  2  D.  J.  <fe  °  Williams  v.  Smith,  7  L.  J.  Ch.  129 

S.  373. 


ficient  without  charging  fraud  by  name.  Kennedy  v.  Kennedy,  3  Ala.  571 ; 
Skiine  v.  Simmons.  11  Go.  401 ;  Faraam  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212. 

A  bill  alleging  fraud  cannot  be  supported  by  proof  of  mistake,  but  the 
facts  may  be  so  alk-gcd  that  relief  may  be  granted  on  the  latter  ground. 
Stcbbins  v.  Eddy,  4  Mason,  414  ;  Smith  v.  Babcock,  2  Wood  &  Min.  246; 
"White  t".  Denman,  1  Ohio  St.  K.  110;  Williams  r.  Sturdcvant,  27  Ala. 
598. 

When  a  party  seeks  to  avoid  the  statute  of  limitations  on  the  ground 
of  fraud,  the  bill  must  be  specilic  in  stating  the  facts  which  constitute  the 
fraud  and  the  time  when  it  was  di.scovercd.  Moore  v.  Green,  19  How,  69; 
Stems  V.  Page,  7  How.  819;  Beaubieu  v.  Beaubien,  23  How,  190;  Badger 
V.  Badger,  2  Wall,  87 ;  Williams  v.  First  Presbyterian  Society,  1  Ohio  St. 
R  478. 

*  A  party  who  has  bought  land  and  been  let  into  possession,  and  who 
seeks  to  enjoin  a  suit  for  the  purchase  money  on  the  ground  of  fraud 
or  failure  ot  title,  must  pray  for  a  rescission  of  the  contract.  Markham  e. 
Todd,  2  J,  J.  r.Luoh.  3(J7  ;  Williamson  v.  Raney,  1  Freeman,  112. 


r>(W  I'l.KAIMNC. 

If  ft  c:istM)f  fnuid  it*  nllfj^i'd  in  rcsjifct  >>(  the  forinatioii  of 
a  company,  it  imi>t  lu>  set  up  \>y  l>ill,  aini  not  h\  j.roct'odinpi 
uiulor  a.  wimliiiLT-np  ordrr.' 

A  di'lVndant  is  not  justitii'd  in  tunittiii;;  t<»  dcnmr  to  a  hill 
on  the  j:round  that  it  contains  char^'es  oi'  fraud  a-;ain,-t  iiiiii.'* 

Assiirnces  of  a  bankru])t  cannot  at  tl>e  hearing' insi>t  on  a 
case  of  fraudulent  preference,  unless  they  have  niisttl  it  in  ilio 
])leadinirs,' 

AVhen  the  same  person  lias  been  induced  to  ])art  with  his 
property  at  an  undervalue  at  two  dilTerent  times,  thrcm^di  the 
misre])resentations  of  two  diUcrent  aj?ents  of  the  same  princi- 
]Kil,  one  bill  may  be  brought  to  set  aside  both  transactions,  ab 
though  in  themselves  wholly  distinct,  and  the  same  will  not  bo 
demurrable  for  multifariousness.* 

If  a  case   of  fraud  be  presented,  a  bill  is  not  demurniblc 

'  LcifcliilcVs  rnsc,  L.  R.  1  Kq.  231.  *  Ilolderncsfl  r  Rankin,  2  D.  F.  <k  J. 

»Ni-sl.itt  r   Ikrri.l^'e,  11   W.  R.  44(5;  2r.8. 

1  N.   K.    -ii^K      t'oinp.    Bothomlcy    v.  *  Wnlwlintn   v.  Staiuton,  1  D.  J.  »t  S. 

Squires,  1  Jur.  N.  8.  094.  078. 


•  An  alU'^'ation  of  fraud  in  a  bill  uuist  be  answcroil,  and  a  ^'encral  dc- 
murrc-r  cannot  be  allowed.  The  allepition  of  fraud  must  W-  denied  l)y 
answer,  whatever  defence  may  In?  adopted  iis  to  other  parts  of  the 
bill.  Stovals  r.  Northern  Bank  of  Mississippi,  5  Snud.  iV-  Mar.  17; 
Ross  r.  Vcstner,  1  Freeman's  Ch.  5S7;  Niles  f.  Anderson,  r,  How.  (.Mi^s.) 

305. 

If  the  defendant  pleads  to  a  bill  containing  an  allegation  of  fnuul,  he 
must  Btill  deny  the  fraud  l>y  answer  as  well  as  by  averment  in  the  plea. 
Niles  c.  Anderson,  5   How,  (.Mi.ss.)  ac.");  Crawley  r.  Timl>erhike,    1   Ired. 

340. 

A  plea  at  law  8ctting  forth  the  facts  uitlioul  avirrini,'  fraud,  is  iiisufli- 
cicnt.     Clark  r.  Partri«lge.  2  Hurr.   13. 

A  plea  at  law  containing  a  general  allegation  of  fraud,  without  setting 
forth  the  facts,  is  insuiruient.  (tiles  r.  Willi:im><,  3  Ala.  :tl(>;  Clay  r.  Dennis, 
8  Ahi.  375;  Hynson  r.  Dunn,  5  I'ike,  3il5  ;  I'endM  rion  r.  Stai>i(S,  0  .Mo.  .ID; 
euiitni,  Iloitt  c.  Holcomb.  23  N.  H.  r,3r). 

When  the  fact«  wt  forth  in  a  plea  at  law  ilo  not  constitute  fraud,  tlio 
intention  to  defr.iud  must  !•«•  averred.  Kratnl  ( onsists  in  the  intention. 
3Iiwrt  r.  Kitldle,  5  Cranch,  3.">1. 


PLEAI)1N(}.  ?,(V.) 

merely  as  being  brou^^lit  for  llio  recovery  of  innncy.*  In  Cult 
V.  Woollaston  ^  it  was  luld  tliat  perfions,  wlui  liad  Ihcii  imluccd 
by  misrepresentation  on  the  })art  of  tlic  jirouioters  «jf  a  pulilic 
eonipaiiy  to  sul)S('ril)0  for  sliares,  may  oI)tain  tlieir  money  back 
by  a  1)111  in  e(piity,  althouijjli  an  action  at  law  might  have  been 
brought  for  the  same  purpose  'with  success.  This  doctrine  has 
ever  since  been  recognized  as  correct,  and  it  has  lieen  fre-  i 
quently  acted  on.^  So  also  a  bill  averring  a  combination  of 
several  defendants,  against  some  of  whom  the  jdaintiff  may 
have  a  direct  remedy  at  law,  while  against  others  he  may  have 
no  remedy  at  law,  or  no  remedy  except  by  as  many  actions  of 
deceit  as  there  are  parties  defendants  to  the  suit,  is  maintain- 
able ;*  though  a  bill  of  the  same  sort  against  a  single  individ- 
ual would  be  demurrable,'  except,  perhaps,  in  cases  where  the 
amount  of  damage  was  ascertained,  or  capable  of  being  easily 
ascertained/ 

The  defence  of  purchase  for  value  without  notice  cannot  be 
admitted,  unless  it  is  pleaded.''* 

When  a  party  relies  upon  the  plea,  he  must,  in  his  plea, 
aver  expressly  that  the  person  who  conveyed  was  seised,  or 
pretended  to  be  seised,  when  he  executed  the  conveyance,  and 
that  he  was  in  possession,  if  the  conveyance  piirjwrted  an  im- 
mediate transfer  of  the  possession  at  the  time  when  he  executed 
the  dced.^  It  must  aver  the  consideration,^  and  actual  pay- 
ment of  it.     A  consideration  secured  to  be  paid  is  not  suffi- 

'  Inixram  v.  Tliorpf,  7  Ha  07  ;  Barr}-  *  IJarrj-  v.  Crosskev,  2  J.  <t  11  30 

V.  Crosskey,  2  J.  ct  11.  1.  *  J/,. 

"  2  P.  \Vms.  151.  •  Itiirram  v.  Thorpe,  7  Ha.  r,7. 

'Groon  i'.  Barrett,  1  8ini.  •l.'i;  Blair  "  Lyne  v.  Lyne,  27  L.  T.  2G^^;   riiil- 

f.    Aijar,    2    Sim.    289;    Stainliank   v.  ipps  ^^  Pliilipp's,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  321. 
Fcrnley,  9  Sim.  r..">ti ;   CViJlaiul  r.   De  "  Jackson  i'.  Howe,  4  Hur-.s.  r)N,  M it f. 

Mauley,  1   Dei:.  <k   Sm.  4r)9;  Heec-liin!;  Plead.  320.     Sec  as  to  case  wlu-re  pur- 

f.  Lloyd,  3  l)re\v.   227;   Henderson  i:  chase   is   of  a    reversion,    Hughes    r. 

Lacon,    L.    R.    5   Kq.    2C>2 ;    but    see  Garth,  .\mbl.  421. 
Thompson  t-.  Barclay,  9  L.  J.  Ch.  219,  »  Millard's  Case,  2  Frecm.  43;  Wa-- 

;xr  Lord  Brougham.  staff  v.  Keau,  2  Cb.  Ca.  156. 


*  Snelgrovc  r.  Snclgrove.  4  Dessau,  '^T-l ;  High  r.  Battc,  10  Ycrg.  ;}3.5. 


;)70  PM'.ADINC. 

rient.*  Thu  i»k'a  must  also  deny  notice  uf  tlie  plaiiitifFs  title 
or  claim  previous  to  the  execution  of  the  deeds  and  j>:iyment 
(•t'tlie  consideration,**  and  the  notice  bo  denied  must  be  notice 
i»f  tlie  existence  of  the  plaintiirs  title,  and  not  merely  notice  of 
the  existence  of  a  person  who  could  claim  under  that  title. ^ 

Notice  must  be  denied  Mhether  it  be  changed  in  the  l)ill  or 
not.*t  Kotice  must  be  denied  by  way  of  averment  in  the  plea, 
otherwise  the  fact  of  notice  will  not  be  in  issue.'*  I5ut  it  is 
sufficient  to  deny  notice  generally  ;  for  it  is  not  the  oilice  of  a 
plea  to  deny  i)articnlar  facts,  unless  they  arc  specially  charged 
as  evidence  of  notice.  If,  however,  particular  facts  arc  si)eci- 
ally  charged  as  evidence  of  notice,  the  plea  mu.^t  be  accom- 
panied by  an  answer  denying  the  facts  as  specially  and  j)arti- 
cularlv  as  they  are  charged  in  the  bill,  so  that  the  plaintitf  may 
'be  at  liberty  to  except  to  its  sufficiency.^ 

'  Hnrdin-ilmm   v.    Nichollg,   3    Atk.  l.oroii-ti,   2   P.  "SVnis.   491;   Ilugbea  v. 

sni;  MoloiTv  V.  Kt-rnan,  2  Dr.  »!:  AVar.  GariRT,  2  V.  A  C.  328. 

:il    .Mitf  Plead.  32i>.  'Harris  v.  Ingledcw,  3  I*.  Wins.  94, 

MIoore  V.   Mavl.ow,  1   Ch.    Ca.    34;  Mitf.  Plead.  :,21. 

Tourville  v.  Naiah,  3  P.  Wnis.  307,  Mitf.  "  Pennington  v.   Bcrchey,  2   Sim.  <t 

Plead   320.  Pt.   2S2 ;   Ovey   i'.    Lci;;liton,   ib.    234; 

>  Kelpall    V.    BcHDctt,     1    Atk.    522,  Ilardnian  t-.  KUaine.s,  5  Sim.  05i»;  2  M. 

Mitf  Plead.  321.  «t  K.  732  ;  Kennedy  v.  Green,  0  Sim.  7  ; 

♦  Aston   V.   ciirzon,  3  V.   Wms.   244  Lord  PorUrlingtoii   i-.   Soulhy,  7  Sim. 

(n  )    f.;    Brace    v.    Duchess  of  Marl-  23;  Gordon  r.  Shaw,  14  Sim.  3'J3. 


■»  Boone  r.  Chiks,  10  Pot.  177;  r.alatian  r.  Erwin,  1  Ilopk.  48;  Brinkcr- 
hoffr.  Lunsin^r,  4  Jolins.  Cli.  i\r> ;  Harris  r.  Fly,  7  Paiyc,  421  ;  Nantz  c.  Mc- 
Phcr'^on,  7  Moii.  51*7  ;  Jenkins  v.  BoiUcy,  1  Snud.  ».\:  Mar.  Cii.  XIH. 

t  Manliutian  Co.  r.  Kvt  rtson,  0  Paij,a',  4."i7  ;  WuodnilV  >\  Cook,  2  Eclw. 
Ch.  259;  Frost  r.  Beeknian,  1  .Iolin.s.  Cli.  288;  Lcftwich  r.  Ome,  1  Fn  eman 
Ch.  207;  Wilson  r.  Hillycr,  Saxlon,  r.3;  Mooro  r.  Clay,  7  Ala.  742  ;  Herring 
r.  ■\Vinan.8,  l  Smcd.  it  .Mar.  Ch.  400 ;  Baynanl  t>.  Norris,  5  Gill.  408. 

The  «lef'(n(f  may  In;  raiseil  by  answer  as  well  a.>«  liy  plea.  Donncll  c. 
KiufT,  7  Leigh,  'M'.i;  Baynard  r.  Norris.  5  Gill.  4(IH. 

The  fuel  of  notiee,  and  the  knowledge  of  every  ( irennistance  from 
which  notice  run  be  inlerre.l  nin-t  be  denied.  Murray  r.  B  illoii,  1  Johns. 
Ch.  500;  Leflwich  e.  Orne,   1   Fr.-ein.   Ch.  207;  Wilson  /.  Ililly.r.  S-uton, 

0  5. 

Where  a  purchahcr  with  nolieo   rclim  upon  the   iL-nurance  of  a  prior 


PARTIES.  "71 

Tf.i  imrcliascr  witlioiit  notice  iU'i;lectH  to  protect  liimw;lf  by 
]>lc;i,  he  may  dcli'iid  liimscll'  hy  aii>\vei'/  l)ut  il"  lie  .'-iilnnils  1o 
answer,  liu  must  answer  fully,  although  he  might  by  demurrer 
(»r  ])]ea  have  protected  himself.'^  A  defendant,  who  i)ut.s  in 
answer  but  docs  not  set  up  the  defence  of  purchase  for  value 
without  notice,  cannot  afterward   insist  on  that  defence.' 

PARTIES. 

The  hgir  at  law  of  a  person  seised  in  fee,  may  maintain  a 
suit  to  set  aside  a  transaction  into  which  his  ancestor  has  been 
induced,  by  fraud,  to  cnter.^  -  lie  is  not  precluded  from  suing 
to  set  aside  the  sale,  by  the  circumstance  of  the  party  defrauded 
having,  by  will,  bequeathed  to  a  third  party  the  balance  of  the 
purchase  money  remaining  due  at  his  death.^  If,  however,  the 
bill  alleges  that  the  purchase  money  is  unpaid,  the  personal 
representatives  must  be  made  parties,  as  being  interested  in 
maintaining  the  validity  of  the  contract.* 

The  executor  of  a  party  defrauded  may  file  a  bill  to  have  a 
transaction  set  aside.'  So,  also,  may  a  devisee  file  a  bill  to  set 
aside  a  transaction  which  has  been  fraudulently  obtained  from 
his  testator.     The  heir  at  law  is  not  a  necessary  party .^ 

■  Att.-Gen.  v.  Wilkins,  17  Bcav.  2S5,  v.  Malpns,  31  Eeav.  88,  31  L.  J.  CIi. 

291.  G'JG ;  Lon-rmate  v.  Ledger,  2  Gilf.  lo7. 

"  Lancaster  v.  Evors,  1  Ph.  3.52.  *  Bellainv  c.  Sabine,  2  Pli.  42."). 

*rhilipp3  V.  rhilipps,  3.1   L.  J.  CIi.  "  Wilkinson  i;.  Fowkes,  9  Ila.  193. 

321.  '  Walriham  v.  Stainton,  1  D.  J.  A  S. 

*  I'ellamy  v.  Sabine,  2  Pli.  42.-> ;  IIol-  G78. 

man    v.    Loynes,  4  I).  M.    cfc  G.   270;  "  Uppington  c.  Bullcn,  2  Dr.  it  War. 

Gresley  v.  Mousley,  4  D.  <fc  J.  78 ;  Clark  184  ;   Harrison  v.  Guest,  6  I>.  M.  <k  G. 

424. 


purchaser,  through  vphom  the  title  has  passed,  he  must  aver  want  of 
notice  in  his  grantor,  and  such  denial  may  be  made  on  information  and  be- 
lief. Griffith  V.  Griffith,  9  Paige,  315;  Gallatian  r.  Cunningham,  8  Cow. 
oGl  ;  Woodruff  r.  Cook,  2  Edw.  Ch.  2o0  ;  Galatian  r.  Erwin.  1  Ilopk.  48. 

*  A  fraud  is  an  individual  and  personal  thing,  and  does  not  form  a 
claim  on  behalf  of  a  stranger  to  the  transaction  not  claiming  under  the 
party  defrauded.  Comstock  v.  Ames,  3  Keyes,  357 ;  Beeslcy  v.  Uamiiton, 
5  lib  88. 


372  TAuriKS. 

So,  also,  may  a  rcinaiiitliT  iiiaii,  \iiulor  i\  sctflciiu'iit.  Hie  a 
bill  to  set  asiilo  a  tniiisactiim,  iiitn  wliitli  his  |ire<lcc'cssor  in 
title,  uinlcr  the  scttK'inent,  has  been  indueed  by  fraud  to 
enter,*  If  iVatid  has  been  jiraetiecd  on  a  tenant  in  tail,  and  has 
been  earried  into  eifeet  by  barrini;  tlu?  entail,  and  he  dies 
without  issue,  and  without  eontinnini;  the  transaeti<»n,  the  next 
remainder  man  may  tile  a  bill  to  set  it  a^sidc  ;  but  not,  if  tliere 
were  an  independent  intention  to  bar  the  entail,  and  the  fraud 
applied  only  to  some  j^art  of  the  transaction,  distinct  from  that 
object.' 

If  several  jierc^ons  have  been  induced,  by  false  and  fraudu- 
lent representations,  to  take  shares  in,  or  subscribe  to,  an 
undertaking,  each  one  may  institute  a  suit  on  his  own  behalf 
for  a  rescission  of  the  contract,  or  for  a  return  of  the  moneys 
which  he  has  advanced.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  other 
persons  defrauded  shuuld  be  parties  to  the  suit,  or  be  repre- 
sented therein."  In  Macbride  v.  Lindsay,^  where  a  bill  was 
filed  by  a  man,  who  alleged  that  he  had  been  induced  by  the 
fraudulent  representations  of  the  directors  of  a  company  to  be- 
come a  member  of  the  company,  praying,  amongst  other  things, 
a  return  of  the  money,  a  demurrer  was  allowed  on  the  ground 
that  the  fraud  of  which  the  ]»laintilf  comj)laiiU'(l  gavi-  him  no 
rigbt  to  rescind  his  contract,  except  a  right  common  U)  himself, 
and  others  who  were  not  rei)resented  in  the  suit.  So,  also,  it 
was  consitlere<l  in  !>eeching  v.  Lloyd,''  that  the  subscribers  to 
a  company  have  such  a  eommunity  ot'  interest  in  the  funds 
subscribed,  as  to  entitle  them  to  sue  j<»intly  for  thcii-  re:nrn.' 
l!ut   these  cases  cannnt    be   reconciled  with  some  verv  recent 


'  Wnnl   ..    IIaHp«.lc.   .'{  Bli^rli,  490;  KUch,  L.  R.  2   App.  Ca.  112;   Smith's 

r.rv<lu'«"'<  »•.  Hraiilil,  lli  Sim.  :WJ.  ('«««•,   lie  Kceso  Silver  .Miniii).^  Co.,  L. 

'■  JLllaiiiy  '•.  Siil.iiK',  -Z  I'll.  4'.'r..     Sen  It.  2  Cli.  Ap|>.  Cul. 
T«r!tl..n  r."  Lidd.ll.  17  <l   H.  Il'.to.  ♦  U  lla.  .'.71. 

•  Coll  r.  W.M,liiu-toii.  2  I'.  Wtiix.  l.'.J ;  •  »  Dr.w.  'J  1 2. 

Grp«-n  t'.  l!arr<tt,  1  .Sim.  4.'» ;  ('ri«l!iin<i  'Sec  Willinms   r.  Smith,  7  L.  J.  Ch. 

r.  It.-  Mniii.  V,  1  \»X.  «t  Sm.  l.'.W;   C.ri-  12«. 
tral  lUiilway  Compuuy  of  Vcuczucia  v 


PARTIES.  ;{7;} 

cases,  in  which  it  has  hcen  liuhl  tliat  a  man,  who  has  been  in- 
ducfd  by  false  rcpresentatiuiis  in  the  pi-ospectus  of  a  C(>m\Kiuy 
to  take  shares  in  the  company,  may  mainlaln  a  suit  on  lii;>  own 
behalf  a<j^ainst  the  company  and  its  directors,  ior  a  rescission 
of  his  contract  to  take  shares.*  The  law,  therefore,  iiprm  this 
subject,  must  be  considered  as  still  open  to  discussion,  but  the 
better  opinion  would  seem  to  be,  that  each  person,  who  has 
been  defrauded,  has  a  distinct  and  separate  ground  of  relief, 
and  that,  therefore,  a  suit  by  one  of  them  on  behalf  of  himself 
and  the  others,  is  irregular,  and  cannot  be  maintained.^ 

A  suit  may,  however,  be  properly  instituted  by  one  or 
some  of  a  number  of  partners,  on  behalf  of  himself,  or  them- 
selves, and  all  others  whose  interest  is  identical  with  his  or 
their  own,  when  the  object  of  the  suit  is  to  make  an  officer  of 
the  company  account  for  a  secret  benefit  or  advantage  ob- 
tained by  him,  in  breach  of  the  good  faith  owing  to  those 
whose  affairs  he  conducts ;  ^  or  to  rescind  a  contract  into  which 
the  partnership  has  been  induced  to  enter,  by  false  and  fraud- 
ulent representations.'* 

The  right  to  bring  an  action  of  deceit  at  law,  or  to  have 
relief  in  equity,  on  the  ground  of  misrepresentation,  is  not 
confined  to  the  person  to  whom  the  fiilse  representation  has 
been  made,  but  extends  to  third  persons,  provided  it  appear 
that  the  representation  was  made  with  the  intent  that  it 
should  be  acted  on  by  such  third  persons,  or  by  the  class  of 
persons  to  whom  they  may  be  supposed  to  belong,  in  the 
manner  that  occasions  the  loss  or  injury.' 

'  Central  Railway  Co.  of  Venezuela  Lund   v.  Blnnslinnl,  4  Ila.  9 ;  Beck  v. 

V.  Kisch,  L.  R.  2  App.  Ca.  112;  Smith's  Kantorowiez,  3  K.  <fe  J.  230;  Attwood 

Case,  He  Keese  River  Silver   Miulng  v.  Merrywiather,  37  L.  J.  Ch.  35. 
Co.  L.  R.  2Ch.  App.  604.  *  See'Sniall  v.  Attwooil,  You.  407. 

*  Jones  V.  Garcia  del  Rio,  T.  «fe  R.  *  Clifford  v.  Brooke,  13  Ves.  132; 
297;  Crosskey  v.  Bank  of  Wales,  4  Langridge  v.  Levy,  2  51.  .t  W.  519; 
Giff.  314.  Longmeid  ••.  Iloliiday,  C.  Excli.    761; 

*  Hichens  v.  Congreve,  4  Russ.  562;  Bidford  v.  Bagsluiw,' 4  II.  «i:  X.  538; 
Taylor  i'.  Salmon,  4  M.  &  C.  134;  Ben-  Blakemore  »■.  Bristol  and  Exeter  Rail- 
son  !'.  Ucathorn,  1  Y.   &,  C.  C.  C.  320 ;  way  Co.  8  E.  <k  B.  1035 ;  >'atiQual  Ex- 


374  rAKi'iKS. 

A  party,  ]mrtially  iiitircxtcil  in  an  c.-tate,  may  maintain  a 
enit  to  set  asiile  a  conveyance  of  such  interest  IVandulently  ob- 
tained from  liim,  without  makini^  the  (ttlur  parties  interested 
iu  the  estate  parties.* 

It  is  a  jjeneral  rule  tliat  a  court  of  justice  will  not  interpose 
acti\ely  in  favor  of  a  man  who  is  j>((ftirrj>s  oriiniius  in  an 
illegal  or  fraudulent  transaction.^*  The  court  will  take  the 
objection  a.>^  to  the  illegality  of  the  transaction,  even  although 
the  defendant  himself  does  not.^  AVherc  both  parties  aro 
equally  ofl'enders  against  the  law,  the  maxim  y>o)'/o;*  est  con- 
ditio j)ossiJ('ntifi,  prevails,  not  because  the  defendant  is  more 
favored,  where  both  arc  equally  criminal,  but  because  the 
plaintiff  is  not  permitted  to  approach  the  altar  of  justice  with 
unclean  hands.*  f  If,  accordingly,  a  deed  has  been  executed, 
or  a  conveyance  made,  to  enable  a  party  to  contravene  the 
provisions  of  an  act  of  Parliament,  no  suit  in  equity  will  lie  to 
set  aside  the  deed  or  recover  the  estate.     The  i)arty  executing 


chnnge  Co.  v.  Drew,  2  Mncq.  10.3;  man  r.  Rnmscy,  San.  it  Sc.  4r>0;  Ilnmil- 
Scutt  V.  Dixon,  li'.t  L.  J.  Excli.  iV-i  n. ;  ton  r.  Ball,  2  Ir.  K(|.  IVtl,  I'.tl;  M'Kin- 
Bajishaw  r.  Seymour,  18  C  IJ.  'MKi;  null  c.  Kobin.'^on,  :J  .M.  tk  W.  4;i9;  Bar- 
Davidson  V.  TiiUoch,  3  Macq.  783 ;  nard  v.  Sutton,  7  Jur.  (Ibo,  j/cr  Lord 
Barrv  v.  Cropskcy,  2  J.  <t  11.  1.  Lvndliurst. 

'  llcniey.v.  Stone,  »  Bcav,  ;{:>5.  "»  Hamilton  v.  Ball,  'J  Ir.  Kq.  I'.tl,  194. 

'Cecil  V.  Butcher,  2  J.  A  W.  572;  *  Nellia  e.  Clark,4  Hill,  (.\uier.),  420. 
Doe  f.  UoberLs,  2  B.  <k  Aid.  369 ;  Batc- 


♦  Creath  r.  Sims,  r,  How.  192  ;  Ncllis  r.  Clarke,  20  Wind.  21  ;  Boyd  r. 
Barclay,  1  Ala.  :M ;  Warbiirton  r.  Aiken,  1  M'Lean,  KIO;  Wluiler  r.  Saye, 
1  AVnll.  518;  "NVyatt  r.  Aycn»,  3  Port.  1.57;  Kamlall  r.  Howard,  2  Blackf. 
685;  Ilannay  r.  Eve.  3  Cranch.  212;  Bartlc  r.  Natt,  4  Pet.  181;  Sims  r. 
Steele,  5  Munf.  2'J;  Steele  r.  Worthington,  2  Ohio,  182. 

Although  the  jiartie-i  h.-ive  lieen  engaged  in  business,  either  tDolinn  in 
«<,  or  merely  prohibited  by  law,  yet  if  the  eause  of  aetion  is  uneonneeted 
with  the  illegal  act,  and  it*  founded  ujjon  a  distinct  and  collateral  consid- 
eration, it  will  not  be  affected  by  their  former  conduct.  Phalen  c.  Clark, 
19  Ct.  121. 

t  Bfdt  r.  Holers,  IJ  Paige,  l.*il ;  F'lirris  r.  Dunham.  5  Mon.  :{07:  Lucas  v. 
Mit«  b(  II,  2  A.  K.  .Marsh.  244  ;  .MCbire  r.  Purcell,  \i  A.  K.  .Marsh.  01 ;  Cuu- 
oiugbam  r,  bhiuldn,  4  Hey.  44. 


PARTIES.  375 

it  cmiiiot  1)0  heard  to  allege  his  own  fr.iiKhilcnt  |»iirposc.  IIo 
is  estopped  from  confining  the  operation  n|"  his  deed  within 
tlie  limits  of  his  intended  fraiid.^  In  a  case  where  a  man,  in 
order  to  give  his  hrother  a  colorable  qnaliiication  to  kill  game, 
conveyed  some  land  to  him,  it  was  held  that  his  widow  could' 
not  avoid  the  conveyance  in  an  action  of  ejectment  against  her 
by  the  brother.'^  So,  also,  if  a  man,  with  a  view  of  defeating 
his  creditors,  makes  a  conveyance  of  his  real  and  personal 
estate  to  another,  no  suit  is,  in  general,  maintainable  by  him 
against  that  other  for  the  recovery  of  the  property.'* 

A  distinction  has  been  taken  l)ctween  cases  wliere  a  deed 
executed,  or  a  conveyance  made,  for  an  illegal  pnr|)ose,  has 
performed  its  office,  and  been  accompanied  by  the  completion 
of  the  purpose,  and  eases  where  the  deed  or  conveyance  has 
not  been  used  for  the  purpose  for  wdiich  it  was  executed.     In 

'  Curtis  v.  rorry.  6  Ves.  747;  Brack-  «  Doe  v.  Roberts,  2  B.  <fe  Aid   369 

onbury  v.  Brackenljury,  2  J.  it  W.  3'Jl;  See  I'liilpotts  r.  Piiillpotts,  10  C.  B.  85 

Cecil   V.   Butcher,   ih.  572;    Groves   v.  '  Nellis  t-.  Clark,  4  Hill. '(Amcr.).i26; 

Grooves,  3  V.  ik  J.  103;  Coinp.  ChilJers  Ford  v.  llarriii'^ton,  2  Smitli  (  imJr  ) 

i\  Childcrs,  1  I).  &  J.  4S2;  Daviea  ,;.  285;  Comn.     Barnard  i'.  Sutton  7  Jur' 

Otty,  35  Beav.  208.  G85. 


*  Fitzgerald  v.  Forristal,  48  III.  228;  TVliite  v.  White,  5  J.  J.  iSIarsh. 
444;  Bryant  v.  Mansfield,  23  Me.  3G0;  Dorsy  r.  Smitlison,  G  II.  &  J.  Gl ; 
Osborne  v.  :Mos3,  7  Johns.  IGl ;  Coltrains  v.  Causey,  3  Ircd.  240  ;  yticknev 
r.  Bosnian,  2  Barr,  G7 ;  James  r.  Bird,  8  Leigh.  510;  Warren  v.  Ilall  G 
Dana,  450 ;  Buelilcr  r.  Gloninger,  3  Watts,  22G. 

A  suit  may  be  maintained  upon  notes  given  as  consideration  ibr  a 
fraudulent  conveyance.     Stanton  r.  Green,  34  Miss.  570. 

Ejectment  may  be  maintained  by  the  fraudulent  grantee.  Stark  v. 
Littlcpage,  4  Rand.  308. 

A  note  secured  by  a  fraudulent  mortgage  cannot  be  enforced  against 
the  maker.     Walker  v.  McConnico,  10  Yerg.  228. 

No  suit  in  equity  is  maintainable  by  the  grantee  against  the  grantor. 
Mason  v.  Baker,  1  A.  K.  Marsh,  208. 

Equity  will  not  lend  its  aid  to  enforce  a  mortgage  given  for  a  fictitious 
debt,  in  order  to  defraud  creditors.     Jones  v.  Comer,  5  Lciirh.  350. 

Although  the  mortgage  is  void,  the  original  debt  may  be  recovered. 
Uaveu  V.  Low,  2  X.  II.  13. 


'M(\  PAUTIES. 

Platamone  v.  Stapk-,'  the  Vicc-ChancL'Uor  appears  to  Iiavo  am- 
Hiilorcd,  that  tho  ciroumstanco  of  the  purpose  tor  which  the 
ilcod  was  inadi'  not  having,'  hoi'ii  ai'coin[>lishe<l,  made  a  material 
ilistinctioii.'  JUit  the  distiiietiuu  docs  not  seem  sound.  It'  a 
i^rantor,  so  far  as  he  can,  completes  tho  transaction  for  an 
ilk'i;al  purpose,  and  leaves  it  in  the  power  of  the  grantee  to 
make  at  his  pleasure  the  illei^al  use  of  the  instrument  origi- 
nally intended,  he  merits  the  consequences  attached  to  the 
illegality  of  his  act.'  It  is  difficult  to  see  upon  what  principle 
it  can  be  contended  that  a  man,  who  intends  to  commit  a 
fraud,  shall  not  have  relief  if  he  succeed  in  his  attempt,  but 
shall  be  relieved  if  he  fails  or  hesitates  to  proceed,  because  ho 
fears  a  failure.  Ilis  intention  is  as  fraudulent  in  the  one  case 
as  in  the  other.* 

A  distinction  has  also  been  taken  between  cases  where  the 
conveyance  has  been  made  with  the  privity  of,  or  the  deed  has 
been  delivered  to,  the  grantee,  and  ra-es  wliere  the  convey- 
ance has  not  been  communicated  to  the  grantee,  nor  the  deed 
parted  with  by  the  grantor.'  But  there  is  a  preponderance  of 
auth(jrity  in  support  of  tho  proposition  that,  although  a  volun- 
tary deed  is  made  without  the  knowledge  of  the  grantee,  and 
ha^  been  kept  in  the  liands  of  tlie  grantor,  a  court  of  ecjuity 
will  not  relievo  against  it.^  In  Brackenbury  v.  Brackenbury,' 
the  grantor  had  never  i)arted  with  the  possession  of  tho  deed, 
nor  had  it  been  used  for  the  fraudulent  purpo.se  with  a  view  to 
which  it  was  executed.  After  the  death  of  the  grantor,  the 
grantee  obtained  possession  by  deceit,  and  under  a  promise  to 
return  it  immediately,  yet  the  court  refused  to  relieve.     Inas- 


'  ('(X)p.  251.  *  Untftnou    i:    Kuni>ny,    ^nu.    «k   Sc. 

*  Si-«-  Hnrnnnl  v.  Sutton,  7  Jur.  W7,.  A1H. 

•CVcil   V.    IJutrhtT,  'i  .1.  A-  W.  r.7H;  '  Wnnl  c  Lntit.  I'roc.  Ch.  IRJ;  lUrch 

I)oo  r.  K.iUcrtH, '.i  H.  it  Aid.  .'tt'iW;   Uob-  r.    Hliiirruvo,    Ami).    201;    (Irovt-s    v 

crU  V.   liolnrlH,   I>nM.   U:i ;  (JrovoH  v.  GroviM.  :i  Y.  ct  J.  IM. 
finivo"*,  .".  Y.  <t  J.  K.:«.     Sff  r.rnrkiMi-  •  (VcM  i'.  liulchcr,  2  .1.  tt  W.  578. 

bury  V.  Drackcabury.  2  J.  Jt  W.  a'Jl.  '  lb.  301. 


PARTIES.  .'{ (  < 

Tinicli  as  it  i.s  well  CKtcablislied  li.w  tliat  a  man  who  executes  a 
\i>liiiitaiT  scttliMiu'iit  passes  the  estate  out  of  liimself,  thouf^li 
hu  retains  tlie  det'd  in  his  own  possession,*  it  is  inipossihlo 
to  contend  that  the  distinction  attempted  to  he  niachj  is  a 
sound  one. 

The  rule  tliat  a  court  of  justice  will  not  actively  interpose 
in  favor  of  a  man  who  is  partlccps  crunhu's  in  an  ille^'-al  or 
fi-audulent  transaction,  like  most  other  <^eneral  rules,  admits  of 
excej)tions.  An  exception  to  tlic  rule  takes  place  where  the 
party  scekiuiij  relief,  althougli  pariiccps  cAminiK,  is  not  in 
pari  delicto  with  his  associate  in  the  matter.  There  may  be, 
and  often  are,  very  dift'crent  degrees  of  guilt  of  parties  who 
concur  in  an  illegal  act.  One  Jtarty  may  act  under  circum- 
stances of  oppression,  imposition,  undue  influence,  of  great 
inequality  of  age  or  condition,  so  that  his  guilt  may  be  far  less 
in  degree  than  that  of  the  other  party .'^  * 

Other  cases  which  form  an  exce})tion  to  the  general  rule 
are  cases  where  the  act  or  deed  in  which  the  parties  concur  is 
against  the  principles  of  morality  or  public  policy.  In  such 
cases  there  may  be  on  the  j^art  of  the  court  itself  a  necessity 
of  supporting  the  public  interest  or  policy,  however  reprehen- 

'  Roberts  v.  Williams,  4  Ila.  130.  borne  v.  AVilliaras,  18  Ves.  S70;  Palmer 

"  Smith  V.  Ikomley,  2  Doug.  O'.IC  n. ;  v.  Wheeler,  2  Ba.  «fc  Be.  31 ;  Reynell  v. 

Bosanquet  i'.  Dashwood,  Ca.  t.  Talb.  41 ;  Sprye,  1  D.  M.  d:  G.  G78,  679. 

Browuiug  V.  Morris,  Cowp.   700;    Os- 


*  Freclove  r.  Cole,  41  Barb.  318;  Prewitt  v.  Copwood,  30  Miss.  3G0; 
Austin  r.  "Winston,  1  Hen.  &  M.  33;  Dismukcs  r.  Terry,  Walk.  l'J7: 
Dertlcy  v.  ]\Iurphy,  3  A.  K.  Marsh,  472 ;  Long  v.  Long,  9  Md.  348. 

The  rule  does  not  apply  to  a  case  where  the  defendant  first  conceived 
the  fraud  for  his  own  benefit,  and,  cither  by  his  artifice  or  influence, 
induced  the  complainant  to  concur.     Cook  p.  Collyer,  2  B.  Mon.  71. 

If  a  person  is  capax  doll,  or  rather,  apnx  fraiuUs,  the  rule  applies, 
nlthiHigh  the  other  party  is  greatly  superior  in  intellect  and  of  more 
prudent  habits,  for,  as  there  is  no  rule  by  which  a  court  of  equity  can 
measure  the  grades  of  intellect  of  dillerent  men  jjossessed  of  legal  cajiacity, 
it  must  hold  them  to  be  of  equal  capacity.  Smith  r.  Elliot,  1  Pat.  &. 
llcath.  807. 

25 


;i7S  TAUT  U.S. 

t.il>U'  till'  condiict  of  tlu'  partii's  tlieinsclves  may  l.i-.**  Al- 
thouirli.  I'or  instaiKv,  a  ninrt  of  cijuity  will  not  relieve  a  man 
who  a^-i^TMs  im.jHTty  to  another  with  the  view  of  vlefeating 
his  ereditors,  the  case  is  tlitlerent  if  the  ])erson  wlio  assies 
the  property  i.4  a  client,  and  the  i)erson  to  whom  it  has  heen 
assii,'ned  is  his  attorney.  The  rule  of  pul)lic  policy  which 
prohibits  an  attorney  from  obtainim::  any  advantai;e  in  trans- 
actions must  prevail,  and  the  attorney  must  recouvey  the 
]>r(»iKM-tv.'  So,  also,  the  purchase  of  a  bankrupt's  estate 
secretlv,  by  a  person  for  the  benetit  of  the  solicitor  to  the 
assi'Tiees  was  set  aside  at  the  suit  of  the  bankrupt,  after  his 
bankruptcy  had  been  annulled,  though  there  was  evidence  to 
show  that  the  bankrupt  had  been  privy  to  the  transjiction." 

When  a  party  to  an  illei::al  or  immoral  contract  comes  him- 
self to  be  relieved  from  that  contract,  or  its  oblitratious,  be 
must  distinctly  and  conclusively  state  such  trrouiuls  of  relief 
as  the  court  can  li'irally  attend  to.  lie  >liould  not  accompany 
his  claims  to  relief,  which  may  be  Iciritimate,  with  claims  and 
complaints,  which  arc  contaminated  with  the  original  immoral 
])urpose.*  A  distinction  will  be  taken  between  eases  where  a 
party  has  actually  accomplished  the  bad  purpose  to  which  a 
deed  was  auxiliary,  and  cases  in  which  he  had  not  participated 
in  the  bad  i»urpose  which  it  was  the  very  object  of  the  deed 
to  procure.'  In  Sismey  r.  Eley,"  where  a  jilaintitf  sought  to 
be  relieved  from  a  deed  by  which  he  had  agreed  to  }>ay  an 
annuity  to  a  woman,  on  the  grouml  that  the  consideration  for 
it  was  a  promise  made  to  him  to  live  with  him  as  his  mistress, 

•  Law  V  Lnw,  Cn.  t.  Tnlh.  140;    St.  *  Bntly  v.  Clio-t.r.  r>  Hcnv.  lf»3. 
John  r.  SL  J"»in.  1 1  Vt-.s.  U.ir,.                            '  Sinvtli  ..  Crinin.  I.i  Sim.  26-1 ;  Bon. 

•  Furdc  llurriiifjton, *2Siuith(Arucr.)       yon  v.  NoUlffuld,  17  biui.  ftO. 

286.  ■  '  ''^-  '• 

•  Adams  r.  Swordcr.  '.:  1>.  .1.  <k  S.  41. 


•  Ford  r.  IlBrritiffton,  10  N.  Y.  285;  Grimes  «.  Iloyt,  2  Joucs'  Kq.  271; 
Johnson  r.  Cooper,  2  Ycrg.  5'J-l. 


PARTIES.  37f) 

a  demurrer  to  tlic  l»ill  was  overrulL'<l,  as  it  did  not  a])i)oar  that 
tlie  plaintiff  Iiad  availed  himself  of  the  promise. 

A  (iisliiicl!i»ii  is  taken  in  (Mjiiitv  befweeii  eiit'orcini,'- illciral 
contracts,  and  assertini^  title  to  moneys  arisin^^  from  an  illc;/al 
contract.  If  the  transaction  allej^ed  to  be  illegal  is  completed 
and  closed,  so  that  it  will  not  be  in  any  maimer  affected  liy  what 
the  court  is  asked  to  do,  the  party  to  the  transaction,  who  has 
possessed  himself  of  the  moneys  arising  ont  of  the  transaction, 
cannot  be  permitted  to  set  up  the  illegality  of  the  transaction 
against  the  otherwise  clear  title  of  the  other.  One  of  two 
partners,  or  joint  adventurers,  therefore,  who  has  possessed 
himself  of  the  property,  common  to  both,  caimot  be  pennitted 
to  retain  it,  by  merely  showing  that  in  realizing  it  some  pro- 
visions in  an  act  of  Parliament,  or  in  the  fiscal  law  of  a  foreign 
Ptate,  may  have  been,  violated.^  So,  also,  and  upon  a  similar 
principle,  if  two  trustees  are  equally  guilty  of  a  breach  of 
trust,  but  one  has  received  the  moneys,  the  other  may  main- 
tain a  bill  against  him  to  recover  the  amount.* 

In  all  cases  of  fraud,  the  hand  of  the  court  is  not  arrested 
by  the  death  of  the  wrongdoer ;  but  the  same  relief  shall  be 
had  against  his  executors,  and  satisfaction  will  be  given  out  of 
his  estate  after  his  death.^  The  fact  of  the  survivor  of  two 
partners  having  been  sued  at  law,  will  not  free  the  estate  of 
the  deceased  partner  from  liability  in  equity,  where  alone  that 
estate  can  be  reached.*  The  estate  of  a  deceased  partner  of  a 
1ii-ni  of  solicitors  is  liable  for  a  fraud  committed  by  the  surviv- 
ing partner.' 

A  third  party  who  has  been  privy  to  a  fraud,  may  be  made 

'  Sharp  V.  Taylor,  2  Ph.  801 ;  M'Blair  v.  O'Brien,  2  Ea.  <fe  Be.  221  ;  In^rraliam 

!'.  Gibbc,'^,  17  ilow.  (Amcr.)  2:;2.     See  r.  Thorp.  7  Iln.  67;  Rawlins  r.   Wiek- 

also  Nash  v.  Ash,  1  Eden.  878  ;  Mince  ham,  3  D.  <t  J.  304  ;    Grecle_v  v.  JIous- 

»'.  Peters,  Harg.  MSS.  No.  112,  p.  St5 ;  lev,  4  D.  <t  J.  78  ;  Walshaiii  i".  Stainton. 

Watts  t'.  Brooks,  3  Ves.  612;  Knowles  1  D.  J.  <t  S.  6'JO. 
)'.  Houghton,  11  Ves.  168.  'Rawlins   i:    Wickhara.    3    D.    i  J. 

"  Baynard  v.  Woolloy,  20  Beav.  583.  322. 

*  Garth  v.  Cotton,  3  Atk.  757  ;    Cur-  '  Sawyer  i-.  Goodwin,  36  L.  J.  CL. 

tis  V.  Curtis,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  620 ;  Falkner  578. 


SSI)  rAUTii:s. 

a  party  to  tho  Mil.'  Il  tliinl  parties  liavc  ai<l(.'<l  the  dircctorB 
of  a  i'oinj>!iiiy  in  misapplyiiii;  tlio  limd.s  of  the  company,  u 
bill  seekiiiir  relief  hoth  n<;ainst  them  ami  the  directors  is  not 
multifarious.*  So,  also,  a  man  who  has  l)ccn  guilty  of  a  frauil, 
in  concert  with  one  of  several  trustees,  may  be  joineil  in  a, 
bill  for  relief  ai^ainst  the  tnistces  jjenerally.'  If  a  man  has 
abetted  a  fraud,  the  absence  of  a  personal  benefit  resulting 
from  it  is  uo  excuse;  he  maybe  justly  uftide  responsible  for 
its  results,  and  even  if  no  otlier  relief  can  be  had  a<;ainst  him, 
he  may  be  compelled  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  suit.*  Solicitors, 
w  attorneys,  who  have  abetted  tlieir  clients  in  a  fraud,  or  have 
prepared  deeds  to  carry  it  out,  may  l)e  made  j)arties  to  a  l>ill, 
to  set  the  fraudulent  transaction  aside,  and  are  liable  to  pay 
the  costs,  even  though  they  may  have  derived  no  personal 
benefit  therefrom.'  A  solicitor,  who  is  im})licated  in  a  case  of 
fraud,  may  be  made  a  party  to  a  bill  seeking  relief  in  respect 
of  that  fraud,  merely  f<»r  the  purposes  of  discovery,  the  only 
relief  asked  being  that  ho  should  be  ordered  to  pay  costs.* 
The  ease  of  course  is  all  the  stronger,  if  the  solicitor  has 
gained  a  personal  benefit  from  a  fraudulent  transaction  into 
which  he  has  induced  his  client  to  enter.'' 

A  ]'er,-on  lilliiig  a  ]i(tsitiiin  of  a  tidtuiarv  character,  as  an 
agent,  is  liable  f<«r  a  breach  of  duty,  though  \\v  may  have 
derived  no  benefit  from  it.  "Wliere  two  agents  concur  in  a 
fraud,  and  one  of  them  only  derives  benefit  from  the  fraiid, 
the  other  is  also  liable  in  equity  for  tlic  benefit  so  <lerived.* 
Those  who,  having  a  duty  to  pcrtunu.  repi'i'seiit  to  others,  who 
are  interested   in  tlu;   jtcrformance  of  it,  that  it   has  been  i>er 

'  Turfiuniul  »■.  Knit;lit,  \i   Sim.  »'>ll;  Berry  r.  y\rmit.Hl('iul.  2  Kci'ii, '227.     See 

Luml   r.  lJlftnt*linr<l.  t   Ha.  it;  CliiirlUju  C'orv  ''.  Kvrc.  1  J).  .1.  &.  S.  lf.7. 
9.  fooriihf.,  4  (Jiff.  :iN.'..  "■(Mli.rrt  v.  Lrwi-.  1  I>.  .1.  A  S.  r.2. 

»  I.iind  I',  niuiixliar.).  1  IIii.  •.».  '  IkiWKtt  v.  Va.i<-.  '<  .\tk.  :i27 ;  Troc- 

*  Att.-JJen.  r.  Crndork,  .'t  .M.  «t  ('.  H.'i.  tor  «*.    Ur)binHon,  :!.'»   Hi-.iv.    ;t:{6.      tjco 

*  .S'ddiin  r.  (Vinn<'ll,  In  Sim.  M.'i.  IJrent  r.  IJniil,  )ti  L.  .1.  Cii.  81. 

*  bowlcH  !•.   Hlfwort,   1    Sell.  «k    I^-f,  '  WnUlium  i'.  Staialon,   1   1).  J.  «t  S. 
227;    Ikodlcft  v.  Burch,  !<•  Sim.  :ia2 ;  078. 


PARTIES.  ;;8i 

tunned,  make  tlieiuselves  responsible  lor  all  tlie  consequences 
of  tlio  nnn-pcrtbnnanec* 

ft'  a  mail  lias  been  induced  by  the  I'alse  roprosentation.s  or 
fraud  of  u  particular  shareliolder  in  a  company  to  ])ureliase 
shares,  the  only  necessary  party  to  a  bill  filed  for  the  return  of 
purchase-money  and  for  an  indemnity,  is  the  person  who  sold 
the  shares.^ 

It  is  not  necessary  that  all  the  parties  charged  with  IVaud 
should  be  made  parties.' 

A  man  who  has  released  the  principal  actor  in  a  fraud,  can- 
not go  on  against  the  other  parties  who  M'ould  have  been  liable 
only  in  a  secondary  degree.* 

It)  a  suit  to  set  aside  a  settlement  of  real  and  personal  estate 
for  fraud,  or  undue  influenee  on  the  part  of  the  trustees,  one 
or  more  of  the  }»arties  beneficially  interested  is  or  are  necessary 
parties.' 

A  partner,  being  liable  for  the  fraud  of  his  copartner, 
when  acting  within  the  proper  scope  of  the  partnership  busi- 
ness,* a  firm  of  bankers  or  solicitors  is  liable  for  fraud  prac- 
ticed upon  a  client  by  a  member  of  the  firm.*  The  client,  or 
principal,  is  entitled  to  relief  against  the  other  partners,  not 
only  if  the  case  is  one  in  which  he  might  have  recovered 

'  Blair  v.  Broniloy,  2  Ph.  300.  »  Read  v.  Prest,  1  K.  &  J.  183. 

'  Stainbank  !'.  Fernlo\',  9  Sim.    556;  *  Brydges  t'.   Brantill,   12  Sim.  .309; 

Mare  »'.  Maiachy,  1  M. '«k  C.  559;  Tur-  Sadler  v.   Lee,  G  Bear.  330;  Blair  v. 

ncr  i:  Hill,  11  Sim.  1.  Bromley,  5  Ha.  542,  2  Ph.  3.")-l ;  St.  Au- 

'  Scddun  V.  Connell,  10  Sim.  79,  byn  v.  Smart,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  1S3. 

*  Thompson  v.  Harrison,  2  Bro.  C.  C. 
104  ;   1  Cox,  346. 


*  Locke  r.  Stevens.  1  j\Iet.  560. 

Two  joint  owners  arc  proper  parties  to  a  suit  for  a  misrepresentation  by 
one  who  was  emploj-cd  to  sell  the  joint  property.  White  r.  Sawyer,  16 
Gray,  580. 

A  joint  action  may  be  maintained  against  two  persons,  if  both  made 
false  representations  at  the  time  of  the  sale,  although  one  onlv  was  inter- 
ested in  the  jiroperty.     Stiles  r.  White,  1  Met.  350. 


382 


ruoor. 


aijainst  sueli  otlier  jtartiic'i\>^,  hut  also  it"  tlie  reimcly  at  law 
Ui^ainst  the  other  i>artners  is  barred  l)y  lapse  of  time.'  The 
original  liability  ot"  diie  partiirr  lor  the  fraud  of  a  eojiartinT 
is  contiiuieil  as  well  after  as  before  the  dissolution  of  tho 
partnership,'  A  fraud,  however,  eoniniitted  by  a  j)artner 
whilst  aetiui;  on  his  own  separate  aecount,  is  not  imputable  to 
the  firm,  althouirh,  had  he  not  been  connected  with  it,  ho  might 
not  have  been  in  a  ptisitioii  to  c-ouiuiit  the  fraud.* 

The  infancy  of  the  defrauding  ])arty  will  not  exempt  him, 
for  tliough  the  law  protect  him  from  binding  himself  by  con- 
tract, it  gives  him  no  authority  to  cheat  others.* 

A  suit  which  has  been  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  setting 
aside  a  transaction  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  will  not  fail  merely 
because  the  bill  may  have  incorrectly  and  untruly  alleged  a 
third  person  to  have  been  a  i)articij)ator  and  joint  actor  in  the 
fraud,  although  such  incorrect  mode  of  stating  the  case  may 
affect  the  costs.' 


PROOF. 

A  man  who  alleges  fraud  must  clearly  and  distinctly 
prove  the  fraud  he  alleges.  The  ohhm  jn-ctfjandi  is  upon  him 
to  prove  his  case  as  it  is  alleged  by  the  bill.'''  If  the  fraud  is 
not  t-trictly  and  clearly  proved,  as  it  is  alleged,  relief  cannot 
1)e  had,  although  the  party  against  whom  relief  is  sought  may 
not  have  been  perfectly  clear  in  his  dealings."'  Fraud  will  not 
be  carried  l>v  w-av  of  relief  one   tittle   liev<»nd   the   manner  in 


'  Ulair  V.  Rronil<v,  li  I'll.  :iSI. 

'  lb. 

'  Ei-parte  Eyre.  1  Ph.  227  ;  Coomor 
'.  Hroiiiley,  .'<  Dfu.  A-  .*<m.  r>.'{2;  nitliup 
V  (ViijnU'H-i  of  .I<THcv,  2  I)riw.  11 U. 

*  EvrDV  V.  Nichrdax,   2    V.<\   V.i.    Ah. 


*  lUirton  c.  Hliik'-morc,  2  .Inr.  1O02; 
n.'lliiniy  r.  SiiV.iiu'.  2  I'll.  12.5,  418; 
lUnir  f.  IJroiiilcy.  f>  I  In.  .^.'>0  ;  ("urzon  r. 
H' IwDrtliv,  11  .Iiir.  VMi>;  Ji<nr.int;H  t>. 
Hrouiihlon.  17  H«-nv.  2:{'.i ;  WiMo  ». 
(Jilisnn,  1  ILL.  r.tCi;   Hohsoii  |..  Eiirl  (if 


4HH;  Cory   »•.  (JiTti^hcn.   2  .Miidii.  M;  l>cvon. -1  .Iiir.  N.  S.  218 ;  Loiiinx  r    Kip- 

Ov.-rton  V   I'mntiHtpr.  '.i  lln.  :>»:\ ;  Stik<'-  l.y.  21  L.  J.  Ch.  2.M  ;  Smitli  r.  K.iy,  7 

Dion  r.  DnwH-.n.  1  IJpu'.  A  Sm.  Ho.  IL  L.  7.'iO. 

•  Ueyntll  v.  Sj.rvc.  I  1>.  .M.  it  <;.  flSiL  '  Mowatt  v.  lilako,  ai  L  T.  387 


PROOF.  883 

Avliicli  it  is  proved  to  tlie  Patisfactioii  of  tlu-  court.'  If  a  ease  of 
actual  fraud  is  allci^^rd  ]»y  the  l>ill,  rolicf  cauiiot  Ikj  had  on  the 
bill  by  ])roviM<:^  only  a  case  of  constructive  fraud.'*  •'■ 

If  the  l)ill  alk'ijjcs  a  case  of  fraud,  and  the  title  to  relief 
rests  upon  that  fraud  only,  the  bill  ^vill  be  dismi.ssed  if  the 
fraud  as  allocked  is  not  proved.  It  cannot  be  allowed  to  be 
used  tor  any  secondaiy  i>ni-i>ose.  But  if  the  case  does  not 
entirely  rest  upon  the  proof  of  fraud,  but  rests  also  upon 
other  matters,  which  are  sufficient  to  give  the  court  juri.sdic- 
tion,  and  the  case  of  fraud  is  not  proved,  but  tlie  other  matters 
are  proved,  relief  will  1)C  given  in  respe'et  of  so  much  of  tlu; 
bill  as  is  proved.^ 

The  rules  of  evidence  are  the  same  in  equity  as  at  law.* 
Whether  certain  facts  as  proved  amount  to  a  fraud,  is  a  ques- 
tion for  the  court  as  well  at  law  as  in  equity. f  Tlie  i^acts  to 
constitute  a  fraud  must  be  proved  at  law  by  the  jury.*  In 
equity  they  are  found  by  the  court ;  but  a  court  of  equity  is 
not  justified  in  finding  such  facts   upon  any  less  or  difierent 

•LnfTf.  Lord,   11  Jur.  X.  S.  50,  52,  Espcv  v.  Lake,    10  Ila.  2r,0;  Baker  v. 

per  Lord  Wfstl)urv.  Bra^llcy,    7  D.  M.  &  G.    5'.)7  ;  Traill  v. 

»  Parr  v.  Jewell,"^  1  K.  it  J.  r,71.  Bar■uli,^  :i;5  L.  J.  (h.   521 ;   Ilickson  v. 

*  Crlascott  V.  Lan^,  2  Ph.  HIO;  Wilde  L)mb.iid.  L.  R.  1  App.  Ca.  324. 
V.  Gibson,   1   ILL.  G07  ;  Arelibold  v.  Mlanninir  n.  Leelimere,  1  Atk.  453 ; 

Commissioners  of  Charitable  Beiiuest^,  Man  >'.  Ward,  2  .\tk.  220;  Glyn  u.  Bank 

2  IL  L.   440;  Price  v.   Herrinictm,   3  of  En','!and,  2  Ves.  41 
Mac.  «t  G.  480;  Parr  v.  Joweil,  1  K.  &  '  Murray  ;•.  Mann,  2  Exch.  539. 

J.  671;  Billage  v.  Southee,  9  Ila.  535; 


♦  Eyre  r.  Potter,  15  How.  42  ;  Gibson  v.  Randolph,  2  Munf.  310  ;  Gcrdo 
c.  Hawkins,  2  Dcv.  Eq.  :303;  Blaisdcll  v.  CowcU,  2  Shop.  370. 

AUcLrations  without  proof,  or  proof  without  allcpitions,  can  never  bo 
the  foundation  of  a  decree.     Brock  r.  McXaughtrey,  5  Moii.  210. 

An  allcLTntion  of  fraud  is  not  sustained  by  proof  of  a  mistake  of  law. 
Gerdc  r.  Hawkins,  2  Dov.  Eq.  39:). 

Evidence  of  intoxication  can  not  be  introduced  under  a  bill  charging 
misrepresentation.     Hutchinson  v.  Brown,  1  Clarke,  408. 

f  Petlibonc  v.  Stevens,  15  Ct.  19;  Beers  r.  Botsford,  13  Ct.  146. 

Frautl  is  not  to  be  considered  a.s  a  single  fact,  but  a  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  from  all  the  circumstances  of  a  case.  Brogden  v.  Walker,  2  H.  &  J. 
285. 


3S4  I'uoor. 

kind  (if  piMot"  tli.in  wmilil  1>(>  ri'ijuin-il  to  safist'v  a  jiirv.  Tlio 
law  ill  no  case  jiresuim's  train!.  Tlic  |)rc'>iim|>ti<iM  is  always  iti 
favor  of  iinuK-cncc,  aiul  not  of  ^uilf.  In  no  (luuhtt'iii  matter 
(Iocs  the  court  lean  to  the  conclusion  of  fraud.  Fraud  is  not 
to  l>c  assunu'd  on  tloulitful  evidence.  The  facts  constituting; 
fraud  must  he  clearly  and  conclusively  established.* ''  Circum- 
stance.^ of  mere  suspicion  will  not  warrant  the  conclusion  of 
fraud.*  t  If  the  case  made  out  is  consibtent  with  lair  dealing 
and  honesty,  a  charge  of  fraud  fails.* 

It  is  not,  however,  necessary,  in  order  to  estahlish  traud, 
that  direct  atlirmative  or  ])ositive  ])roof  of  fraud  he  givi-n.'*  In 
matters  that  reirard  the  conduct  of  men,  the  certainty  of 
matliematical  demonstration  cannot  he  expected  or  required. 
Like  much  of  hmnan  knowledge  on  all  subjects,  fraud  may 
he  inferred  from  facts  that  are  established.  Care  must  be 
taken  not  to  draw  the  conclusion  hastily  from  ]>remises  that 
will  not  warrant  it;  but  if  the  facts  establi>lie(l  atlbrd  a  sufii- 
cient  and  reasonable  ground  for  drawing  the  inference  of  fraud, 
the  conclusion  to  which  the  proof  tends  must,  in  the  absence 

'  Rowen  v.  Evans.  2  II.  L.  257 ;  Tike  »  Hamilton  r.  Kir\v:in.  2  J.  <t  L.  401; 

f.  Vi;,'ern.  2  I)r.  A  Wnl.  207.  Pnrps  r.  I'nr.-s,  ;',:;  L.  .1.  Cli.  218. 

•  Tn-iichard  v.   AVanley.   2  P.  Wms.  *  Llewfllin  r.  .Mnckwortli.  2  Alk.  40; 

166;  I5utli   and   Montai^'u's  Cnso,  :{  Cli.  VillicrH  »'.  VillitTs.  (6.  71 ;  Mum-. Ward, 

•  'a.  Ill;  Townsj-nd  r.  Lowfu-ld,  1  Vcs.  tV*.  22'.t;  pjist   indiii  Co.   i-.    Honnld,   9 

.3.'>,  ti  Atk.  y.W;  .M'QiR'on  »•.   Fnr«iuliiir,  Vos.  2H2;  Stiki-inaii  v.  l)aws()n,  1  I)i'i;. 

11    Vc«.   407;   WalkiT  v.    Svmonds,   :j  «k  Sm.  Id.'.;   I'icklL-M  f.  I'kklcs,  9  W.  IL 

Sw.  61  ;   llatnilt<.n  v.  Kirwaii.  2  J.  .t  L.  397  ;  31  L.  J.  Cli,  146. 
401;  Suiitli  I'.  I'awxjn.  2.'»  L.  T.  40. 


•Tencklcr.  IJailcy,  2  Hrock,  -V.l ;  Kanbome  r.  Stct.son,  2  Storj-,  481; 
Chrirttniau  r.  Rpiiik.  lo  Ohio.  OOO  ;  Buck  r.  Sherman,  2  Doii;^.  170;  Casey 
r.  Allen,  1  A.  K.  .Mur^ii.  IM ;  llumilton  r.  Bcal,  2  II.  ct  J.  414  ;  IVtric  v. 
Wriuiit,  0  Sincd.  &  Mar.  042. 

Wliin  tlic  Inuid  rclatcH  to  title,  the  nature  of  ineuniliraiircs  and  Diit- 
htandin;;  tillcs  must  be  shown,  so  that  the  e(»urt  may  JtnlLr"'  of  thrir  valid- 
ity.  Ayres  r.  .Milrheli,  :{  SmiMJ.  A:  Mar.  (!h:{;  Mo^.s  r.  Davidson,  1  Snud.  it 
Mar.  112;   Wilson  r.  LealFoor,  I  J.  .1.  Maisli.  (>. 

t  Clark  r.  Whit<',   12  I'.t.    17m  ;   I'liittiplaee  r.   Sayles,  4   Ma-^on,  313; 


PROOF.  ;iS5 

of  explanation  or  contradiction,  i)c  adopted.*  *  It  i.s  cnougii 
if  frtc'ts  be  estfthlislicd  from  wliicli  it  would  be  impossible, 
ii]ii>ii  a  fair  :in<i  rcasuii.-iblc,  conclusion,  to  conclude  but  that 
there  must  have  been  fraud.^  The  motives  with  wliich  an 
act  is  done  may  be,  and  often  arc,  ascertained  and  determined 
by  circumstances  connected  Avith  the  transaction,  and  the 
parties  to  it.  Various  facts  and  circumstances  evince,  some- 
times witli  nnerrin:!!^  certainty,  tlie  hidden  j)urpose8  of  the 
mind.^  "A  deduction  of  fraud,"  says  Kent,*  "may  be  made 
not  only  from  deceptive  assertions  and  false  representations, 
but  from  facts,  incidents,  and  circumstances,  whicli  may  be 
trivial  in  themselves  ;  but  may,  in  a  given  case,  be  often 
decisive  of  a  fraudulent  design."  ' 

Though  the  proof  of  fraud  rests  on  the  party  who  alleges 
it,  circumstances  may  exist  to  shift  the  burthen  of  proof  from 
the  party  impeaching  a  transaction  0:1  the  party  upholding  it. 
If  the  evidence  establishes  2i  prima  facie  case  of  fraud,  or 
shows  that  an  instrument  is  false  in  any  material  i>art,  the 


'Rex  V.  Biinlftt,   4  B.  <fe  Aid.    101,  295;  Ilenncquin    v.  Naj-lor,   10  Smith 

lf.2  ;  Stikcman  c.  Dawson,  1  Dci^.  &  Sin.  (Amcr.),  141. 

105;  Uumphrcy  v.  Ulvcr,  28  L.  J.  Ch.  *  2  Comm.  p.  484. 

406.  »  Seo  C'larkson  v.  llanwny,  2  P.  Wm. 

"Pickles  )'.  rickles,  9  W.  R.  .397;  31  205;    Bennett  «-.   Vade,    9   Mod.   315; 

L.  J.  Cl).  140;  Jie  Marsden's  Trust,  4  Hubbard   v.   Briggs,   4   Tiffi  (Amer.{ 

Drew.  599.  538. 


Nicliuls  V.  Pinner,  4  Smith  (Amer.), 


Taylor  r.  Fleet,  4  Barb.  95  ;  White  r.  Trotter,  4  Smed.  &  .Alar.  30  ;  Grei^g 
V.  Sayrcs,  8  Pet.  244. 

This  means  no  more  than  that  the  proof  must  be  such  as  to  create 
belief,  and  not  merely  suspicion.  A  rational  belief  should  not  bo  dis- 
carded because  it  is  not  conclusively  established.  Watkins  r.  "Wallace,  19 
Mich.  57. 

*  Reed  v.  Noxon,  48  111.  323 ;  M'Conike  r.  Sawyer,  13  N.  H.  39G ; 
Pope  r.  Andrews,  1  Smed.  «fc  Mar.  135;  Denton  r.  McKenzie,  1  Dessau. 
289. 

Influence  is  not  suscci)tible  of  direct  proof  Conant  r.  Jackson,  10 
Vt.  335. 


386  PROOF. 

burthen  of  showing  lliat  tlie  transaction  was  lair  lies  upon 
the  i»arty  who  seeks  to  ui)lu»hl  it.'  If,  for  exanii)le,  it  a^jpear 
that  the  donee  of  a  powtr  of  apjioiiitnicnt  ha«l  at  any  time, 
before  tlie  exercise  of  tlie  power,  the  intention  to  derive  a 
personal  benefit  from  its  exercise,  the  burthen  rests  on  those 
who  support  the  ai)pointment  to  show  that  the  intention  had 
been  abandoned  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  api>oint- 
mont.-  lSt>,  also,  if  a  man  riMinliilcntly  min_L,des  moneys 
belon<>-ini;  to  another  with  moneys  of  his  own,  it  lies  on  him 
to  sever  the  portion  which  is  alfected  by  the  fraud,  from  that 
which  is  not  allectcd  by  the  fraud.''*  Upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, if  it  appear  that  a  fiduciary  or  confidential  relation  exist 
between  the  parties  to  a  transaction,*  or  if  it  be  establisln-d  by 
evidence  that  one  of  the  parties  possessed  a  power  of  intiuence 
over  the  other,'  the  burthen  of  proof  lies  upon  the  party  tilling 
the  position  of  active  confidence,  or  possessinj:;  the  power  of 
influence,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  establish,  beyond  all  reason- 
able dunlit,  the  perfect  fairness  and  honesty  of  the  tran.-action. 
Parol  evidence  is  admissible  in  such  eases  to  prove  the  fairness 
of  tlie  transaction  ;  but  it  is  to  be  received  and  weighed  with 
the  most  scrui)idous  accuracy,  and  to  be  dealt  with  as  having 
its  weight  affected  by  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
parties  sto(»d.' 

AVhcn  a  party  is  under   the   obligation  of  showing   tliat  an 

'  Watt  t-.  Grov<«.  2  Sc)i.  «t  Lof.  r.02 ;  eon   v.   Il.allinm.    1  V,  it  C.  C.  ('.  3  JO; 

rrince   of  Wiilis  AHsurancc  Co.  >•.  I'al-  Allfroy  i'.  Allfn-y.  1  .^Ilu^  it  (i.  W ;  Hil- 

iiicr,  2.')  Hoav.  Cit,' ;   ItiiHscll  »•.  Jackson,  luiro  f.  Soutlu'c.   y    lla.   MO;   Monro  v. 

lolla.  2l:(;  Cotliim    i'.    Ka.-t('rn  I'ouii-  rranrc,  »/».  ::n:t ;  /rM;)r.i,  pp.  loj.  l  iti. 

ti«-s  llailway  Co..  1  .l.«t  II.  'IV.i;  Dowlc  '  Cookf   i'.    I,amotli«,    1ft   Utiiv.  2»0; 

V.  >"atiiukTH,  2  II.  it  M.  2.'><i.  Kay  »'.  Smilh,  7  11.  L.  7o'>;  kii/>i;i,  pp. 

Mlutnphrey  r.  Olv.r.   2S   L.J.  Cli.  i:ii.  l:is. 

4UC,.  °  AV   llolmf'K'H  EHtatp.   :?   Ciff    347; 

'  UiiNM'II  V.  Jnckson.  10  IIii.  2i:!.  Walk.r  r.  Smilli,  2o  H.av.  :JU4. 

*  GibBon   I'.  Jt-ytft,  *">  Vph.  27h  ;   Il.ti- 

•  Btcprn  t».   Ilna-liin.l,   nO  111.  'J77;   Will   r.   Silvciston,   Ct  Hu^li    COS; 
Brackcnridgc  r.  llullaiul,  2  Hluckr.  1177. 


I'uooF.  387 

ii!i|>r<i('cssioTi;il  jtersoii  undurstuuil  the  c<iiitcnts  of  u  deed  or 
in^tl•UIU(■Ilt  wliicli  lie  executed,  the  inere  ])i-0()f  of  its  having 
been  read  (tvei*  to  him,  tiiiaccoinpaiiied  with  jtroixr  exj)lana- 
tions,  is  nut  sufficient  to  satisty  the  court  that  the  per.soii  hear- 
ing it  read  understood  it.^  It  must  be  proved  by  tliosc  wlio 
claim  under  it, .  upon  satisfactory  evidence,  tliat  tlic  nature, 
effect,  and  contents  of  tlie  deed  were  cxphiined  to,  and  per- 
fectly understood  by  liim.^ - 

The  intervention  of  an  independent  tliird  party  or  adviser 
is  an  important  ingredient  in  showing  the  fiiirness  of  a  trans- 
action.' If  a  solicitor  be  employed,  there  is  always  strong 
prima  yacie  evidoncG  that  the  party  for  whom  he  was  acting 
knew  the  nature  of  the  transaction;*  in  all  cases,  imleed, 
where  an  independent  legal  adviser  or  solicitor  is  employed, 
the  evidence  that  everything  which  was  necessary  to  be  know' n 
had  been  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  his  employer  would  be 
conclusive.'  The  intervention,  however,  of  another  solicitor  or 
adviser,  who,  with  the  knowledge  of  the  other  party  to  the 
transaction,  a  former  solicitor  of  his  employer,  neglects,  or  does 
not  properly  discharge  his  duty,  is  not  sufficient  to  support  a 
transaction  between  them.* 

'  Ilosliton  V.  Hofrhton,  15  Bcav.  311;  Davie?,  4  GifT.  411 ;  Cartledge  v.  Kad- 

Moore  I'.  Prance,- 9  Ha.  304.  See  Sliarp  bourne,  14  W.  R.  C04. 

V.  Leacli,  31  Beav.  503 ;  Tokerr.  Tokur,  »  Cooke  v.  Lamotte,  15  Bcav.  240. 

ib.  629  ;  32  L.  J.  Cli.  325.  ♦  Denton  v.  Donner,  23  Beav.  291, 

'  Moore  v.  Trance,  9  Ila.  304  ;  Ander-  '  De  Jlontmorency  v.  Devereux,  7  CI. 

BonV.  Ellsworth,  3  Giff.  154  ;  Davies  y.  &  Fin.  188. 

°  Gibbs  V.  Daniel,  4  GifT.  1. 


*  Owing's  Case,  1  Bland,  370  ;  Seldcn  r.  Jlycrs,  20  IIow,  506. 

A  court  of  equity  will  not  commonly  act  upon  the  ignorance  of  a  deed 
by  a  person  who  can  read  and  write  ;  but  requires  evidence  of  a  contiiv- 
ance  in  the  opposite  party  to  have  tlie  instrument  drawn  wrong,  and  keep 
the  maker  in  the  dark.     ]Michael  v.  Michael,  4  Ired.  Eq.  349. 

"Wlicn  a  grantor  undertakes  to  read  a  deed,  he  must  read  it  correctly; 
and  if  he  docs  not,  it  is  a  fraud.  That  the  grantee  is  capable  of  reading 
it  himself  makes  no  difference.     Stamps  r.  Bracy,  1  How.  (Miss.)  312. 

The  presumption  that  a  person  who  can  read  knows  the  contents  ol 


388  PROOF. 

A  jKirty  is  not  estopped  iVom  avoidini;  his  dioil,  l»y  ])n»vini» 
that  it  was  cxocutcMl  l\ir  a  IVaiuhili'iit,  iMei^ul,  or  iiiunoral 
puq^osf.'  Ndtwithstaiuliii:^  the  soK'iiinify  ami  \'><\-ci'  which 
the  hiw  ascrilus  to  deeds,  and  all  the  strietness  with  which  it, 
in  general,  prolii!>its  the  introduction  of  extrinsic  evidence  to 
jirovc  that  an  instrument  goes  beyond,  or  does  not  fully  eon- 
tain,  vv  incorrectly  exhibits,  the  terms  of  tlic  contract,  which 
it  was  written  and  signed  for  the  i)nrp(»se  of  expressing  and 
recording;  the  rule  is  settled,  and  not  merely  in  courts  of 
ecpiity,  that  a  deed,  on  its  face  just  and  righteous,  may  bo 
vitiated  and  avoided,  by  alleging  and  adducing  extrinsic  evi- 
dence to  prove  that  it  was  founded  on  a  consideration,  or  had 
a  view  or  purpose  contrary  to  law  or  public  i)olicy.'^  Although 
a  party  may  thus,  in  certain  cases,  be  enabled  to  take  advantage 
of  his  own  wrong,'  this  evil  is  of  a  tritling  nature  in  compari- 
son with  the  flagrant  evasions  that  would,  in  many  cases,  result 
from  the  adoption  of  a  diflferent  rule.* 

If  a  person  be  induced  by  tVaiidident  statements  to  enter 
into  a  written  contract,  it  is  competent  for  him  to  prove  fraud 
bv  evidence  aliunde,  although  the  written  contract,  or  the 
deed  of  conveyance,  is  silent  on  the  subject  to  which  the 
fraudulent  representation  refers.'*     So,  also,  fraud,  whether 

•  Collinfl  p.  Blnntnrn,  2  Wils.  SH  ;   1  *  RoyncU  i-.  Spryc,  1  1).  M.  .t  C  072. 

•^niitli's  L  <'   a'i.'i;  Tiixton  r.  l'<.|>lin:ii,  ;«r  Kniuflit  Ilnico.  L.  .1. 

9  K.l^t,  4'^1 ;  (''a>^  Liirlit  »u<l  Cnk.-C.).  >:  '  Doe  v.  Foril,  li  A.  A  E.  0.')!;  Doer. 

Tiirnf-r   5  n'in"    N-  <"■  <">''•*'>•    *'  '*'"'-•  '^'  Howclls.  2  li.  A-  Ad.  747. 

r  8-l'strntlordiin<l  Mont«.n  Kailwav  *  Bi-nyon   r.   Ncltlefol.l,  n  Mao.  «t  (}. 

r'o  '•  '^trillion    2  n.<k  Ad.  r,lH;  llilli'-.  102.     Sec  Malbliou  i-.  llo.l(,-<>n.  It'.  (J. 

Mnncl.e»ler   Wnt.  rwurks  Co.,  H:   ft.Vi,  K   C89;  Bowca  t-.   Foster,   2   II.  A  N. 

ft53-   I).^  r.  llow'lln.  'A.  7«":   Benvon  779. 

r   X'.ttk.fol.l.   17  Si.n.  :..-. ;  :-.  -Mac  .t  C  »  Dobell  r.  StovoiiR.   3   B.  .t  ('.  n2«  ; 

94-   lI..rton  r.   \V«-htminj.t.T   Improve-  Wrii,'lil  f.   t'nx.k.-s.  1    ^o.  N.   U.  (,H7>, 

n.e'i.t  Comniii«.ioDer«.  7  Excli.  7bO.  C'J8;  UoUon  f.  Browne,  'J  C  B.  N.  S. 

442. 


the  inBtrumcnt  which  he  exocutes.  only  stnnils  until  i)r()of  to  the  contrary 
is  produced.     IlarriH  r.  Deluinar,  «  Ired.  Kq.  21:1. 

♦  Boycc  r.  firundy,  3  Pet.  210;  Brainerd  r.  lirainerd,  15  Ct.  n?") :  II<d- 
brook  r.  Burt.  22  I'irk.  :U0  ;  Flatdrr  r.  I'reiss,  U  Uawlc,  'Mr,;  Kennedy  t. 
Kennedy,  2  Ala.  571  ;  Wil»on  v.  Walts,  U  Md.  U5G. 


PROOF.  .'iSlJ 

in  a  record  or  deed,  or  writing  under  seal,  may  l^e  proved  by 
parol  evidence.'  So,  also,  if  it  a])pcar  from  the  written  evi- 
dence, tliat  tlie  agreement  really  made  between  tlie  ])artie.s 
is  not  stated  by  the  deeil,  j)arol  evidence  is  admissible  to 
explain  it.'' 

The  testimony  of  one  sini^le  witness,  unless  suj)ported  by 
circumstances,  cannot  be  allowed  to  prevail  against  a  positive 
denial  l)y  the  answer.  If  a  defeii<lant  jxtsitively,  jilaiidy,  and 
precisely  denies  the  assertion,  and  one  witness  only  proves  it 
as  positively,  clearly,  and  precisely  as  it  is  denied,  and  there  is 
no  circumstance  attaching  to  the  assertion  to  overbalance  the 
credit  due  to  the  denial,  as  a  positive  denial,  a  court  of  equity 
will  not  act  upon  the  testimony  of  that  witness.  AVhere,  ac- 
cordingly, a  man  positively  denies  notice,  and  one  witness  is 
adduced  to  prove  the  fact  of  notice,  the  court  will  place  as 
much  reliance  on  the  conscience  of  the  defendant,  as  on  the 
testimony  of  a  single  witness,  without  some  circumstance  at- 
taching a  superior  degree  of,credit  to  the  latter.^  * 

y 

'Filmcr  v.  Gott.  4  Bro.  V.  C.   230;  C.  C.  52;  Lord  Cranstown  v.  Johnson, 

Robinson  v.  Lord  Vernon,  7  C.  B.  N.  S.  3  Ves.    170;  East  India  Co.  v.  M'Don- 

231;  Holders  c.  lladky,  2  II.  (fc  C.  227.  aid,  9  Ves.   275;  I'Uling  v.  Amiitage, 

-  Cripps  V.  Jee,  1  Bi^o.  C.  C.  472.  12  Ves.  80.  See  Whitworth  v.  Gaugain, 

'  Evans  v.  Bicknell,  G  Ves.    183,  per  Cr.  ife  Ph.  325. 
Lord  Eldon ;  I'euiber  v.  Matiiers,  1  Bro. 


*  Qarrow  «.  Davis,  15  IIow.  272 ;  Flagg  v.  Mann,  2  Sumner,  48G ; 
Thompson  t.  Sanders,  6  J.  J.  Marsb,  94;  Green  r.  Tanner,  8  ]\Iet.  411  ; 
Miller  r.  Tolleson,  1  Ilai-p.  Ch.  14:J. 

One  witness  and  coiToboratiug  circumstances  amounting  to  a  violent 
presumption  are  sutficient  to  overcome  the  denial.  McCormick  r.  ^lalin, 
5  Blackf.  509;  Denton  r.  M'Kenzie,  1  Dessau,  289. 

To  have  this  etlect,  the  answer  must  be  direct,  positive,  and  uneijuiv- 
ocal.     Farnam  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212. 

A  denial  according  to  the  best  of  the  defendant's  recollection  and  be- 
lief is  not  sufficient.     Town  v.  Necdham,  3  Paige,  54G. 

If  the  facts  admitted  by  the  answer  establish  fraud,  they  must  be  held 
to  outweigh  the  denial.      Cuuniugliam  r.  Freeborn,  3  Paige,  557 ;  Dick  o. 


390  COSTS. 

COSTS. 

The  general  rule  with  respect  to  costs,  being  tlint  costs  fol- 
low the  event,  and  that,  prinul  facie ^  he  who  succeeds  ought 
to  liave  them  ; '  if  a  transaction  is  set  aside,'  or  a  hill  for  the 
spccitic  performance  of  a  contract  is  dismissed,'  on  the  ground 
of  misrepresentation,  concealment,  undue  inlluence,  or  any 
other  sjiecics  of  fraud,  the  successful  litigant  is,  as  a  general 
rule,  entitled  to  the  costs.  So,  also,  if  a  hill  he  filed  for  the 
rescission  of  a  transaction,  (»n  the  grnund  of  fraud,  and  the 
charge  of  fraud  fails,  the  dismissal  is,  in  general,  with  costs.* 
So,  also,  when  the  spccilic  performance  of  a  contract  is  resisted 
on  the  ground  of  fraud,  and  the  charge  of  fraud  fails,  the  de- 
cree is,  in  general,  with  costs.'  So,  also,  when  a  purchaser  ob- 
tains specific  performance,  with  compensation,  it  will  be,  in 
general,  with  costs." 

>  Townsend  v.   Clmmpcrnownc,  3  Y.  *  Lnnfjlcy   v.    Fisher.    9    Bcav.    91 ; 

tfc  C.  rj'i?;  Parr  I'.  Lovi'grovc,  4  Jur.  N.  Loader   v.    Clnrk.    "2    Mac.  A  G.   3s7 ; 

{^  ci").     *                         .  Pulsford    I'.    Kiclinrd^,    17    Heav.    87; 

'»  Edwards   v.   M'Clcay,  2   Sw.  280;  Jennings  v.   Hroii-liton.   i6.  2S9 ;   Dol- 

Ik'llainj-  f.  Sabine,  2  Pli.  425 ;  Dent  v.  man    v.   Nokes,  22    lU-av.    402  ;    New 

BenneU,  4    M.  «fc  C.    209;    Gibson   v.  Brunswick,  Ac.   Uaihvay  Co.   «•.  Cony- 

ITEste,  2  Y.  «t  C.  C.  C.  581  ;  Multiallen  beare,  9  IL   L.  7;J.'>;  Luff  v.   Lord,  11 

t'.  Marum,  3  Dr.  <t  War.  :n7;  Watersw.  Jur.  N.  S.  60;   Strakcr   r.   Ewing,  34 

Thorn,  22  Ik-uv.  .ir.l  ;  Slim  v.  Croucher,  lieav.  147. 

1  D.  F.  <t  J.  5211 ;  Dally  ''.  Wonliam.  33  '  Abbott  v.  Sworder,  4   Deff.   <fe  G. 

Bcav.    162;    Baker  f."M'>iik,   ib.   425;  4C0  ;  Haywood    r.  ( '<>i>e.  2.".    I'.eav.  110; 

Davi.H  V.  Davies.  4  (Jitl.  417.  Clarke  v.  Mackintosli,  4  (iitV.  l.M. 

'  Vaiicuver  V.   Bli^s.   11   Yes.  4C3 ;  •  Leyland   v.   lHin;,'worth,  2  1>.  F.  * 

Lf>rd  Brooke   i-.    Koundtliwaite,  5   Ha.  J.  218  ;  (Jodge  r.  Duke  of  Montrose,  2tt 

306  ;  Myers  f.  Watson,   1    Sim.   N.   S.  Bcav.  45. 
629;  Cox  f.  Coven  ton,  31  Beav.  388. 


Orissom,  1  Freeman,  428  ;  Gardiner  Bank  v.  "WTieaton,  8  QrcenL  :57:] ;  C.ran- 
nifl  r.  Smith,  d  Humph.  171) ;  Guzzam  r.  Poyntz,  4  Ab.  374. 

Much  reliiinct!  sliould  not  be  placed  upon  loose  conversations  or  con- 
fessions of  the  party  to  overlmlance  hia  stdemn  denial  in  his  answer. 
Flufrg  r.  Mann,  2  Sumner,  4 HO. 

When  an  executor  or  admini.str.itor,  unswerinj^  in  his  npresentativo 
character,  alle^jefl  facts  of  which  he  can  have  no  personal  knowledge,  his 
nnswer  will  Iw  allowed  its  due  weight  only,  and  i<  not  entitled  to  the  full 
influence  of  the  iinswer  of  a  \w\\\  speaking  <.f  tin-  facts  which  may  be 
■within  his  own  knowledge.  Clurk  r.  Van  Kieiudyke,  9  Craach,  V)'i\ 
Dug.in  r.  Giltingfl,  3  Uill,  130. 


COSTS.  .'JDl 

Till >nL,'li  the  ^^ont'ral  rule  is  i\\:d,Jf7'undfac^^',\\(J^\■]]()  huc- 
cecds  ()iii;lit  to  Ikivu  the  costs,  costs  in  equity  do  not  alw.'ivs 
follow  the  event.*  There  may  he  often  circiiinstances  of  an 
e(pn'tahIo  nature  to  cxeni])t  the  unsuccessful  i)arty  from  tho 
];aymcnt  of  costs.'  *  When,  for  instance,  a  bill  for  the  recis- 
fiion  of  a  transaction  on  the  pjround  of  misrepresentation  was 
dismissed,  tlie  dismissal  was  witliout  costs,  the  court  ])eiii_i; 
satisfied,  althou<i^h  the  char<^'es  as  to  misrepresentation  liad 
failed,  that  the  property  had  not  heen  correctly  described.'  So, 
also,  where  a  bill  for  the  rescission  of  a  transaction,  on  the 
ground  of  undue  influence,  or  of  advantage  taken  of  a  fiduciary 
l)Osition,  was  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  acquiescence,  or  de- 
lay in  instituting  the  suit,  or  even  on  the  merits,  the  dismissal 
was  without  costs,  tlie  court  being  satisfied  that  the  plaintiff 
had  a  reasonable  cause  of  suit,  or  that  the  conduct  of  the  de- 
fendant had  rendered  an  investigation  not  unreasonable.*  So, 
also,  if  there  Las  been  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  plaintijff, 
he  will  not  have  his  costs,  although  he  succeed  in  the  suit.' 
So,  also,  although  a  bill  is  dismissed,  it  will  be  without  costs 
if  there  has  been  negligence.®  So,  also,  in  a  case  where  relief 
was  given  against  a  transaction  on  the  ground  of  undue  in- 
fluence, costs  were  not  given  to  the  plaintiflT,  as  her  conduct 

'  Staines  v.  :Morri.^,  1  V.  ct  E.  IG.  Jlontmorency  v.  Dcvercux,  7  CI.  it  Fin. 

'Vancouver   v.   Bliss,  11  Ves.  463;  188;  Salmon  v.  Cutts,  4  Dcj;.   <fc  Sm. 

Townsend  i».  Chanipernowne,  3  Y.  <fe  C.  12."i  ;    Baker   v.   Read,    18  Beiiv.   SW; 

627;   Grove  ti.   Bastard,  1  D.  M.  «fc  G.  Ilartoj)})    v.    Hartopp,    21    Beav!    274; 

78  ;  Lyon  t-.  Home,  10  W.  R.  824.  AVrii,rht  ;■.  Vanderplank,  2  K.  A  J.  18  ; 

»  Bartlett  v.   Salmon,  6  D.  M.  &  G.  Clejjir  ,,.  Edmondson.  8D.  M.  <t  G.  8i>0; 

40;  Hallows  v.  Fernie.  L.  R.  3  Eq.  r)20.  Clanricarde  v.  llenninfj,  30  Beav.  175; 

*  iIontci=quieu   !•.    Sandj-s,    18   Ves.  Tokcr  f.  Toker,  31  Be'av.  62'J  32  L  J 

301 ;  Cliampiou  !•.  Ricrby,  H  L.  J.  Cli.  X.  Ch.  326. 

S.   211;   Fylcr  ;■.  Fyler,  3  Beav.  550;  *  Allen  v.  Kniijlit,  5  Ila.  280. 

Edwards  v.   Meyrick,  2  lla.    75;    De  '  Evans  r.  Biekncll,  6  Ves.  173, 


*  McDonald  v.  Neilson,  2  Cow.  139;  Bradley  r.  Chase,  22  'Sic  r,ll ; 
White  r.  Meday,  2  Edw.  Ch.  486;  Pearce  r.  Chastain,  3  Kelly,  226;  Sut- 
phen  r.  Fowler,  <J  Paige,  280;  Reiuick  r.  Smith,  2  II.  &  J.  471 ;  Spencer  r. 
Spencer,  11  Paige,  299. 


;ii)2 


COSTS. 


was  not  free  from  Maim-.*  So,  also,  altliou^^^h  a  transaction  is 
set  asido,  the  rrscis.-iitu  may  be  without  costs,  if  the  defeiuUint 
is  free  fn.m  lucnil  Maim-.^  So,  also,  when'  llir  i^IaintilV  is 
j>(i/'firrj>,s  r;vw/;</.s  and  seeks  to  set  a^ido  a  t-i'ciirity  on  the 
ground  of  jmblic  policy,  the  decree  will  he  with(«ut  costs.*  So, 
also,  alth(»Ui;h  speciiic  ])erforinancc  be  decreed,  the  decree  will 
be  without  costs,  if  the  j-arty  resisting  peitbrinance  had  a  fair 
and  reasonable  ground  lur  doing  so.'*  In  Iliggins  r.  Samcls,'' 
where  a  bill  for  the  speciiic  ]ici  torniance  of  a  contract  was  dis- 
missed, on  the  ground  of  misrein-csentation,  the  dismissal  was, 
untler  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  without  costs.  The  court 
alwavs  exercises  its  discretion  in  disnn'ssing  a  bill  for  speciiic 
performance,  and  with  costs,  on  the  ground  of  circumstances 
which  Would  not  be  suliicient  to  cancel  the  agreement  on  tho 
ground  of  fraud."  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  defendant  has 
been  to  blame  in  the  matter,  or  has  by  conduct  contributed  to 
the  litigation,  the  dismissal  of  a  bill  for  specific  performance 
Mill  l»e  without  costs.'' 

As  a  general  rule,  where  costs  have  been  occasioned  by  tho 
conduct  of  either  party,  the  i)arty  mIio  occasioned  the  costs 
must  bear  them  ;  and  where  by  the  misconduct  of  both  parties, 
neither  has  liis  costs  :  and  where  a  suit  has  been  rendered  ne- 
cessary l>y  the  misconduct  ot"  I'itlicr  ]tarty,  still  a  \>av\  of  tho 
costs  may  havu  been  rendered  neces.siry  by  the  other  party.'* 
If,  accordingly,  a  man  succeeds  in  obtaining  the  relii'f  jirayed 


•  Lvon  r.  Home.  10  W.  R.  824. 
MVurd   t'.   llartpol.'.  S    Hlit'ti.   490; 

■\V«K)(1  >:  At.n-y,  :f  .Mud-I.  4'j:i;  (Jn.Vfs  v. 
rerkins,  0  Siiii.  &"<5;  Huker  t-.  Ciirlur,  1 
Y.  tt  ('.  5i.'>'> ;  Stnntoii  r.  TatterHuil,  1 
Sm.  «t  (i.  r»:if» ;  I'r'nK'aiix  i-.  Lonr-dalr,  1 
1).  J.  it  S.  4:!'.'.  In  |inrli<iilar  tascs, 
the  plointitr  iimy  Jinvi-  to  jiav  tin-  coMtH. 
nltliou;;!)  tin*  tnin-nction  H  wet  nf*i(lc,  if 
I  Ik-  «lffrni!atil  In-  fm*  from  moral 
l.lam.-.      Davi.N  r.  (Hty.  ».'.  lt<av.  '.J'l.S. 

•  |)f»»(n!iim  i>.  Ox.  1  y*".  ■-"•>;  Mor- 
gan V.  liruca,  LI.  di  U.  U-mp.  biig.  1«0; 


but  800  Jnckmnn  v.  Mitoliell,  13  Vch. 
r»81.  Comii.  Dnvica  r.  OUy,  35  Beav. 
'2U«. 

*  Burrowes  r.  Lock,  10  Vos.  470; 
Vnncouvfr  v.  lUiss,  1 1  Veg.  4rt3 ;  Fen. 
ton  V.  Hrownt'.  II  Vch.  ISO.  See 
M'(2ii«'cn  »'.  Faniu'iiar,  1  1  Vt-.s.  482. 

'2  .1.  4t  JI    4t.ip. 

*  I  (avis  v.  Svnionil.'*,  1   Cox,  402. 

'  Walters  ..'  .Morgan.  3  D.  1".  .t  J. 
71«. 

"  Purr  V.  Lovegrovo,  4  Jur.  N.  S.  601, 
per  KinilerHley,  V.  C. 


COSTS.  ;j!)3 

for,  and  lias  tlic  costs  of  tlic  suit  i^^cm-rallv,  but  fails  to  cstalilish 
allegations  of  frau<l  in  llic  bill,  lu;  must  pay  tlu;  costs  occasioned 
by  such  allegations  being  introduced,*  oi-,  fur  the  sake  of  sini- 
jdicity,  no  costs  will  be  given  to  either  side  when,  but  for  tlu; 
allegations  of  fraud,  the  plaintiff  would  have  been  entitled  t(j 
the  costs.^  In  Ivhodcs  v.  Bete,^  the  defendant  was  not  ordered 
to  pay  costs,  though  tlie  transaction  was  set  aside,  inasmuch  as 
the  case  of  the  plaintiff  failed  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  in- 
asmuch as  in  so  far  as  it  succeeded,  it  was  by  force  of  the  law 
of  the  court,  and  not  by  any  merits  of  his  own,  the  evidence 
adduced  by  him  being  also  irrelevant  and  overcharged.  In 
Staniland  v.  Willot,^  where  charges  of  fraud  in  the  bill  were 
neither  supported  nor  repelled  by  evidence  on  either  side,  the 
costs  M-ere  not  thereby  affected,  as  it  did  not  appear  that  any 
costs  were  specially  occasioned  by  such  charges.  In  Yy\cY  v. 
Fyler,"  however,  a  bill  containing  unproven  charges  of  fraud 
was  dismissed  without  costs,  because  the  defendants,  by  mixing 
up  their  personal  interests  in  the  transactions  in  question,  had 
rendered  an  investigation  not  unreasonable.  In  like  manner, 
charges  of  fraud  made  by  defendants  will,  if  unsubstantiated,  be 
visited  with  costs,  even  though  the  defendant  gets  the  costs  of 
the  suit  generally.*'  So,  also,  the  l>ill  will  be  dismissed  without 
costs,  if  the  conduct  of  the  defendant  has  not  met  with  the  ap- 
])roval  of  the  court.'' 

AVhcre  plaintiff  succeeds  in  a  suit  on  the  ground  of  fraud 
he  will  be  entitled  to  all  the  costs  occasioned  by  it,  and,  there- 
fore, in  Stanley  r.  Bond,^  a  bill  for  the  delivery  of  securities 

'  Blest  V.  Browne,  8  Jur.  N.  S.  CU2 ;  *  3  JIac.  <fe  G.  064. 

.Tones  V.  Rieketts,  in  W.  R.  bid.     See  " ;}  Beav.  550. 

Harvey  )'.  Mount,  8  Biav.  430;  Shaekle-  "  Wriijht  v.  Howard,   1   Sim.   A-  St. 

ton    r.    SutditVi'.    1    \)cir.   cfc  Sm.   0J3;  205 ;  Warriu  «;.  Thomas.  2  W.  R.  442; 

JJroniley  r.  Sniitli,  2t)   Beav.    070;  St.  Pledge   v.  Buss,  John.  000 ;  Tbeyer  ». 

All)yn  V.  Ilardiiiii-,  27  Beav.  11  ;  Baker  Tonihs,  12  W.  R.  512. 
V.  Bradley.  7  I>.  M.  &  G.  620.  '  Beather    Cloth    Co.    v.    American 

=  Cullirigworth    v.    Lloyd,   2    Beav.  Leallu-r  Cloth  Co.,  33  I..  J.  Ch.  I'JQ. 
o8o;  Rawlins  v.  Wickliain,  1  GifF.  355.  '  6  Beav.  423. 

"  L.  K.  1  Ck  Arp.  202. 


o94  COSTS. 

rraiululoiitlv  obtaimd,  ln-ini^'  t;ikcii  j>ro  conft'sso,  tlio  jdaintifl' 
was  lu'M  t'lititk'd  tt)  i1k'  f(i>ts  of  an  acliiui  at  law,  coin- 
inciu'i'il  till  till'  sicuritic'S,  tlioii^li  not  fpi'citii'ally  jiraytl  lur  by 
the  bill. 

If  a  bill  {"(intainini;  allci^atidns  of  fraud  bo  (kMiiurraidc,  and 
tljc  ik'fiiKlaut  (b>  not  deniur,  his  not  havincf  deniurrod  will  bo 
a  reason  for  refnsinn^  hiiu  his  extra  costs  at  tlic  liearin;;.* 

If  acts  are  (•liari;e<l  ai^ainst  a  |>arfy,  wliirh  an-  in  tlictn- 
sclvcs  fraudulent,  tlie  court,  upon  tlio  question  of  costs,  always 
considers  the  bill  as  imputini^  fraud,  altliou^li  tlic  word  tniud 
be  not  used  in  tlie  bill.' 

Although  a  suit  cannot  be  maintained,  tlic  court  may  dis- 
miss it  before  the  hearing,  evtii  without  costs^if  the  defendant 
lias  been  guilty  of  gross  fraud.'' 

A  solicitor,  or  legal  adviser,  who  lias  abetted  or  mixed 
himself  up  in  that  character,  in  a  fraudulent  transaction,  may 
be  made  a  jtarty  t<»  the  suit,  for  the  mere  ptir[)osc  of  having 
the  costs  paid  by  liiiu.*  lie  eanntjt  excuse  himself  from  the 
]iavment  of  costs,  on  the  ground  that  he  acted  as  his  client's 
adviser.'  In  a  case  where  a  solicitor  was  free  from  all  moral 
blame,  and  took  no  benefit  from  the  transaction,  the  costs  of  a 
suit  to  set  aside  the  transaction  were,  nevertheless,  thrown  on 
liim,  because  he  had  not  explained  to  his  client  the  nature  of 
the  instrument.'  Although  costs  may  not  be  given  against  a 
solicitor  who  has  mixed  himself  iij)  in  a  fraudulent  transaction, 
costs  will  not  be  given  to  hiiii.^  in  JIarviy  v.  Blount,*  a 
solicitor  who  acted  as  such  in  a  ti-aiisactioii  which  was  im- 
peachable on  the  gniund  <<\'  fiaud,  but  wa'^  liiiii>rll"  I'wr  from 


•  Ncwhilt  V.  Bcrriil'^f,  1  N.  K.  :i::>.  *  Moore  »•.    rraiiro,  tt  I  In.  .*!<»;{.     Soo 
'Mnrnlinll  v.  SIimI.I.m,  7  lla.  HI.  Ilen.iloH  r.  linrcli.    lu   Sim.  :!:(•_';    llop. 

•  KltKV  «'.  AduiiiB.  a  I).  J.  tt  S.  1J7.  ry  t-.    Annilwloml,  2    Kct-ii.    'J'J? ;    (ill. 

•  Mar'nlinll    r.    .sLiddrn.   7    Ha.    'li:{.  bVrt  v.  Lcwin,  1   J).  .1.  .t  S.  t,2.  mipra, 
S«:c  iJr  III  r.  Hnnl,  l<i  L.  J.  Cli.  84.  ]>.  iil'l. 

•  iJciiiiitl  It.  VikIi',  2  Atk.  '.i'ii  ;   liar-  '  KwMy  v.  WillinniH,  :)  J.  it  L.  23. 
vcy  V.  Mount,  8  licav.  A'6'J.  '  8  Ikav.  r.iV. 


COSTS.  .'J05 

inornl  c'ulj):il)ility,  was  orflci-c*!  to  jiay  liis  own  costs,  as  he  liad 
not  acti'il  with  proper  prudence  in  flif  niafter.  So,  also,  in 
Fylcr  V.  Fyk'r/  wlieru  a  solicitor,  hy  nii.xinij:  n]>  his  ]M!r.>onal 
interest  in  liis  client's  transactions,  rciulcred  an  investi;;ation 
not  unroasonal)le,  the  bill  was  dismissed  against  him  without 
costs,  though  it  contained  unproven  charges  of  fraud. 

The  costs  of  a  suit  to  set  aside  a  deed  for  fraud,  will  not  be 
given  against  a  solicitor,  or  jiarty  lo  the  t'raud,  if  they  are  not 
specifically  prayed  by  the  bill.'-'  If  they  are  not  specifically 
])rayed  by  the  bill,  a  demurrer  will  lie.' 

If  a  man  bo  accessory  to  a  fraud  on  creditors,  as  being  the 
trustee  of  a  voluntary  settlement,  he  will  not  be  allowed  Ins 
costs  on  setting  aside  the  deed,  although  he  may  have  derived 
no  benefit  from  it.* 

In  a  case  where  the  name  of  a  man  had,  by  the  false  repre- 
sentations of  a  third  party,  been  inserted  on  the  register  of  the 
shareholders  of  a  company,  it  was  held  that  the  company, 
though  innocent,  must  bear  the  costs  of  the  aj)plication.^ 

The  Consolidated  Orders  38,  r.  2,  rcg.  2,  do  not  contem- 
plate the  cause  of  frand,  so  that,  although  the  value  of  the 
subject-matter  of  the  suit  at  the  time  of  filing  the  bill  may  be 
considerably  less  than  £1,000,  the  costs  Mill  be  allowed  on  the 
higher  scale.' 

'  3  Beav.  650.  *  Townsend  v.   Westacott,   4   Beav. 

•Beadles    r.   Burcli,    10   Sim.    333;       58 ;  Turquand  »-.  Kni;;ht.  14  Sim.  C44. 
Roddy  i:  Williams, :',  J.  <fe  L.  li"..  »  7iV  Tatent  File  Co..  15  \V.  R.  754. 

'  Beadles  v.  Burch,  10  Sim.  333,  '  Earl  of  Stamford  v.  Dawaou,  16  W. 

B.  S'J6. 


ClIATTKIl    ir. 

MISTAKE. 

Mistake  ii?  a  pjroniid  for  n-lii-f  in  (•(jiiity.  Ari>f;iko  may 
be  said  to  be  some  unintentional  act,  omissiDU,  (u*  error  arisini; 
from  uneonseiousness,  iij^norancc,  tor^ett'uhiess,  imposition,  or 
misplaced  contidence.  ^  Tbere  is  mistake  it'  a  man  tlirougli 
ij^norance  be  induced  to  do  a  thing  which  he  would  not  have 
done,  IkhI  he  not  been  in  ei")"or.^ 

Mistake  may  be  eithei'  in  matter  ot"  law  or  in  matter  of 
£ict.» 

The  rule  that  mistake  in  matter  of  law  cannut  be  admitteil 
as  a  valid  excuse  cither  for  doing  an  act  ]>rohibited  by  the  law, 
or  for  the  omission  of  a  duty  which  it  imposes,  is  common  to 
all  systems  of  law.  liKjula  est  jni'is  ignorantiata  cuiqiw 
nocere,  is  the  langnage  of  the  Pandects.'  Ljnorantia  juris 
non  excused^  is  the  maxim  of  the  common  law.  "  It  is  to  be 
j»rcsumed,"  says  Manwood,  as  reported  by  I'lowdcn,'  ''that  no 
BuVtject  <»f  this  realm  i>  miscognizant  of  the  law  whereby  he  is 
governed.  Ignorance  of  the  law  exeuseth  none.''*  The  rule 
LJ  not  only  expedient,  but  is  absolutely  necessary.  \'(  igno- 
rance of  law  M'ere  admitted  as  a  ground  of  exemption,  the 
court  would  be  inv(»lved  in  questions  which  it  were  scarcely 
possible  to  solve,  and  which  wouM  render  tlie  adinini>traHon 
of  justice  next  to  injpracticable,  for  in  almost  every  ciuse  igno- 
rance of  law  would   be  alleged,  and   thi'  court  wouhl,  for  the 

•  Storj''B  Eq.  Jur.  110.  •  .Soo  MniiHcr'n  <'«<to.  2  Co.  Rep.  8  o. 
•Jeremy's  Eq.   Jur.   I3k.    V,  J-l.  2,  p.        h;    Cook     v.    Wottoii,    \     Loon.    190; 

36R.  Slevcn.'*  w    Lynch.  12  ICiiHt,  «s ;  Toodo 

»  Ditr-  Lib.  22,  tit.  0.  i-.   JnlniKon.    11    I'.xrli.   S|i);   I'oulay   r. 

•  I>i-.  Lib.  22.  tit  C,  leg.  9.  lirown.  11  C    H.  N.  s.  r.t'iO. 

•  1  I'lowd.  312. 


MISTAKE.  397 

purpose  of  (letcniiiiiiiii,r  tlu-  point,  bu  often  foiii])oIl(,Ml  ii,  cnler 
upon  «|iit'sti(»iis  of  fact,  iiisoluhic  and  interniinaljlc' 

'J'hr  rule  is  the  same  in  equity.     Mistaki;  in   matter  of  law 
eaniic't  in  -viu  ral  be  adniittcd  as  a  ground  of  relief  in  equity.'* 


'  Austin's  Jur.,  vol.  II,  p.  172.  v.  Duke  of  Devonshire,  ir,  Ikiiv.  \>:,T ; 

*M!iUlcn  V.  Mcnill,  a  Atk.  8;  Mar-  Ti-ud   v.   Jolinson,  25   D.  J.  Excli.  110,' 

slinll   r.  Collttt,   1  Y.  tt  V.  2;f2;  Dcnys  MkIIiiihI  Greut  Western  Co.  of  Ireland 

V.  Shuckbur',rh,  .j  Y.   ik  C.  42;  Mellers  v.  Johnson,  G  II.  L.  1W. 


*  Bank  of  United  States  v.  D.micl,  V2  PA.  iil ;  Hunt  r.  Rousinanier,  3 
Mason,  ;!42;  s.  c.  1  Pet.  1;  s.  c.  «  Wheat.  174;  :\IcMurr.iy  r.  St.  Loiii.s  «fec 
Co.,  'M  Mo.  377;  Peters  v.  Florence,  38  Peun.  194;  G\V}Tin  i\  Huniilton, 
29  Ala.  233;  Smith  r.  MeDougal,  2  Cal.  580;  State  v.  Reigart,  1  (iill.  1  ; 
Dill  r.  Shahan,  25  Ala.  694  ;  Mellich  r.  Robertson,  25  Vt.  003 ;  Sliafer  v, 
Davis,  13  111.  395 ;  Lyon  r.  Sanders,  23  Miss.  530 ;  Gilbert  r.  Gilbert,  9 
Barb.  533;  McAuincli  v.  Laughlin,  13  Penn.  371;  Cooi)er  r.  Crosby,  3 
Oilman,  500;  Ilincliman  r.  Emans,  Saxton.  100;  Drake  v.  Collin.s,  5  Uovr. 
(Miss.)  253;  Trigg  v.  Read,  5  Humph.  529  ;  Storrs  v.  Barker,  C  Johns.  Ch. 
ICC;  Bryant  r,  Mansfield,  22  Me.  3G0  ;  Lyon  v.  Richmond,  2  Johns.  Ch. 
GO ;  Brown  r.  Armistead,  G  Rand.  594 ;  Gunter  t.  Thomas,  1  Ired.  Eq. 
195;  Fergerson  r.  Fergerson,  1  Geo.  Decis.  135;  Shotwell  r.  Murray,  1 
Johns.  Ch.  512;  Wintermute  r.  Snyder,  2  Green's  Ch.  489;  Good  r.  Ile'rr, 
7  "W.  &  S.  253 ;  Bell  v.  Steel,  2  Humph.  148 ;  Pcttes'  Bank  t.  Whitehall, 
17  Vt.  435;  Ileilbrou  r.  Bissell,  1  Bailey's  Ch.  430;  Proctor  v.  Thrall,  23 
"Vt.  202;  Dow  r.  Ker,  Spears'  Ch.  413. 

Where  parties  upon  deliberation  and  advice  reject  one  species  of  in- 
struments, and  agree  to  select  another  under  a  misapprehension  of  law  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  instrument  selected,  a  court  of  equity  will  not  on  the 
ground  of  such  misapprehension,  and  the  insufficiency  of  such  instrument 
direct  a  new  instrument  of  a  diirerent  character  to  be  given.  Hunt  r.  Rous^ 
nianier,  1  Pet.  1;  s.  c.  8  Wheat.  174;  Broadwell  v.  Broadwell,  1  Gihuan, 
599;  Leavitt  r.  Palmer,  3  Comst.  19;  Arthur  r.  Arthur,  10  Barb.  >j] 
Durant  r.  Durant,  2  Bi.'asley,  201. 

The  fact  that  a  decision  upon  which  the  parties  relied  has  been  sub- 
sequently overruled,  is  no  ground  for  relief.  Kenzon  v.  Weltz,  20  CaL 
637. 

A  mistake  as  to  the  legal  effect  of  a  statute  is  no  ground  for  relict 
State  r.  Paup,  13  Ark.  129. 

A  mistake  in  regard  to  the  existence  of  a  clause  in  thi^  charter  of  a 
corporation  reserving  the  right  of  appeal,  is  ground  for  relief  King  r 
Doolittle,  1  Head.  77. 

When  a  party,  through  his  attorney's  mistake  of  the  law,  has  bound 


:>iKs 


Misr.vKi:. 


The  maxim,  juris  iguorant'ta  non  rxcJtfiaf,  is  not,  however, 
univeivally  ai>]>lic'altle  in  eciuitv.'  It"  tlie  word  jus  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  denotinij  general  law,  the  ordinary  law  of  the 
eountry,  no  cxcc|»tit)n  imm  he  admit  fed  to  the  ^'eneral  apjiliea- 
tion  of  the  maxim ;  Imt  it  is  otherwise  when  the  word  jun  is 
nscd  in  the  sense  of  denotin<^  a  ])rivatc  rij^ht.'  If  a  man 
thronjrh  misapprehension  or  mistake  of  the  law,  parts  with  or 
•jives  up  a  private  riirht  ol"  ].rM]Mity,  or  assumes  ohli^ations 
upon  fjrounds  upon  whith  \\v  would  nut  have  acted  but  tor 
such  misap])rehension,  a  court  of  eijuity  may  «;rant  relief,  if, 
under  the  general  circumstances  of  the  ease,  it  is  satisiied  that 
the  party  benelited  by  the  mistake  cannot  in  conscience  retain 
the  benefit  or  advantage  so  ac<piircd.^ 


'  Naylor  r.  Winch,  t  Sim.  A  St.  555 ; 
Watson  V.  Marston.  4  D.  M.  <k  G.  'J30. 
230 ;  Stone  v.  Godfrey,  5  D.  M.  «k  G. 
76,  90. 

*  Cooper  r.  riiibl>«,  L.  11.  2  Ai>p.  Ca. 
170, /XT  Lord  Westbnry. 

*  Sec  Cann  t>.  Cann,  1  P.  Wnis.  727 ; 
Pusey  V.  Desbouverie.  :{  P.  Wrns.  ;i2ti; 
Cooking  f.  Pratt,  1  Ves.  inO;  Farewell 
V.  Coker,  cit.  2  Mer.  ','•'>■'> ;  Naylor  v 
Wineh.  1  Sim.  tt  St.  :>r):» ;  Maearthy  f. 
Deeiiix.  2  U.  A  M.  f.H  ;  ("lift on  v.  Cm-k- 
biirn,  :i  M.  it  K.  '.»'.• ;  Sturije  i-.  Sturirf, 
12  Beav.  '2,19;  Davis  v.  Morier,  2  Coll. 
30S;  Ueynell  r.  Spryc.  8  Ha.  222,  255; 
Cox  «•.  iiruton.  5  W.  U.  511;  Stone  r. 
G.-nlfrcy,  18  Jur.  102  ;  Cooper  i'.  Piiiblis, 
17  Ir.  Ch.  82;  l)'A<ruesHeaii,  vol.  IX, 
p.  02y ;  TouUier's  Cod.  Civ.  Liv.  HI, 
tit.  ;{,  c.  2,  S5  •'•2 ;  Larondiit  re,  Tlu'orie 
(le!4  Obli;;.,  vol.  1,  pp.  1:1,  57.  The  niis- 
npi»relienHi<in  of  ri;;lit,s  umlir  a  deed, 
iioi  nrinin',;  from  tlie  mi-cunstnictioii  of 
the  deed,  in.  it  lia.s  been  xaid,  a  mistiiku 
in  fart  ;  and  In  eon^e(pienllv  reliivalile 
in  equity.  Deny»  i'  bliuekLurgli,  4  V, 
ik  C.  42. 


According  to  the  Roman-  law  tlicro 
were  certain  cla8.«es  of  persons  "  ijuilrjM 
pcniiissiiiit  f»t  JHx  i'litorurf."  Diii.  Lib. 
22,  tit.  (■),  leg.  '.).  Tiiey  were  exempt 
from  liability  (at  lea.st  for  certain  pur- 
))oses).  not  by  reason  of  their  uener.d 
imbeeility,  but  because  it  was  pre-<unjed 
thill  their  c;ij>acity  is  not  adeipiute  to  u 
knowledge  of  tli^e  law.  Such  were 
women,  soldiers,  and  jhtsdhs  who  had 
not  readied  the  age  of  twoiity-tive. 
Ignorance  of  law,  considered  pt-r  »/•. 
waa  in  these  cases  considered  a  grt)und 
of  excmjition.  In  such  cases  it  \vu.s 
presumed  from  the  sex.  or  from  the 
age,  or  iVoiii  the  profession  of  the  party, 
that  the  party  was  ignorant  of  the  law, 
and  that  the  Ignorance  was  inevitable. 
Austin's  .lur  ,  vol.  11,  p.  171.  The  ik.t- 
Kuns  "ifiiiliux  jirnnixsiiiii  ciljiis  ifpioriirf," 
could  not,  however,  allege  with  elTect 
their  igiiniaiice  of  the  law  in  case  they 
violated  those  parts  of  it  which  were 
founded  on  the  jiin  ifrntiiim.  For  the 
persiiMs  in  (HKstion  are  not  generally 
imbeeil''.  and  the  J>ts  onit-iiin  was 
knowableHa<Mra.'iru/(o;i(r.   With  rc-jord 


himself  fartbf-r  than  lie  was  legally  liuldc.  he  nmy  in  a  proper  caw!  obtain 
rtdief.  I'itzger.ihl  r.  Peck.  J  Lilt  I'J.'j;  rv/i/r</,  Magniac  r.  Tiiomson,  2 
^Vall.  .Jr.  20;i. 

,\  party  having  constructive   though  not  nrtiial   notice  of  jiidgnu'nt.s 
over  \^lii<!i   b<-  han  priority    by  virtue  of  a  mortgage,  anil  tuking  an  a*- 


MISTAKE.  309 

^listakc  ill  law,  to  1)C  ii  ij;riiiiii(l  I'oi-  i-clicl"  in  cijuity,  inutit 
1)0  of  a  material  iiat  iiiv,  au<l  the  (KitfrniiiiiiiLC  .^)'uiiii<l  (jf  the 
transaction.* 

]\Iistaku  of  law  may  bo  a  misajjprelionsiuii  of  tUo  law,  or 
of  their  private  ri^dits  to  property  hy  both  jjarties  to  a  traiiK- 
action,  both  of  them  nialviiiij:  substantially  the  game  mistake ; 
<»r  it  may  be  a  misa]>|iiX'lien>ion  of  tlie  law  or  of  hi.s  private 
riglit  by  one  of  tlie  parties  alone. 

If  an  apircenient  bo  entered  into  between  two  parties  in 
mutual  mistake  as  to  their  relative  and  respective  ri^dits, 
either  of  tlieso  is  entitled  to  have  it  sot  asidc.'^  AVhere,  for 
instance,  a  party  entered  into  an  aii^reement  with  another  to 
take  a  lease  of  what  in  fact  was  his  own  property,  both  parties 
being  under  a  common  mistake  as  to  their  respective  rights, 
the  trausaction  was  set  asidc.^     So  also  where  a  man  had  sold 


to  the  jits  civile,  or  to  those  pnrls  of  '  Stone  v.  Godfrc}-,  5  D.  Jt.  it  G.  70, 

tlic  Uoiiian  low  whicli  were  peculiar  to  infra,  p.  ;34i». 

tlie  system,  tlicy  inii,^lit  all^'ije  with  ef-  '^  Cooper  v.  I'hibbs,  L.  R.  2  App.  Ca. 

feet  tlieir  ifjnoraiiee  of  tlie  law.     An-  149. 

still's  Jur.,  vol.   II,  p.    175;  see   Liiidl.  *  lb. 

on  Jur.,  p.  24. 


siirnnient  of  the  equity  of  redemption,  and  thereby  merging  the  mortgciije, 
acts  uiiiler  a  mistake  as  to  his  legal  rights,  and  can  not  have  relief. 
Campbell  r.  Carter,  14  111.  28G. 

The  presumption  that  every  man  knows  the  law,  may  be  rebutted  by 
proof,  and  relief  granted  against  a  mistake  of  the  law.  Evarts  t.  Strode, 
11  Ohio,  480. 

"Wlurc  the  legil  principle  is  confessedly  doubtful  and  one  about 
which  ignorance  may  well  be  supposed  to  exist,  a  person,  actini;  under  a 
misapprehension  of  the  law,  will  not  forfeit  any  of  his  legal  rights  by 
reason  of  such  mistake.  Lammott  v.  Bowly,  6  G.  «fc  J.  500  ;  Cumberland 
Coal  Co.  r.  Sherman,  20  Hid.  117;  Champlin  r.  Laytin,  10  Wend.  407;  s. 
c.  1  Edw.  Ch.  407  ;  a  c.  0  Paige,  189;  Garner  v.  Gamer,  1  Dessau.  437; 
Lowndes  v.  Chisolm,  2  McCord's  Ch.  435;  Mortimer  v.  Pritchard,  1  Bai- 
ley's Ch.  505;  Freeman  r.  Curtis,  51  Me.  140;  Jordan  r.  Stevens.  51  Me. 
78;  Moreland  r.  Atcliinson,  10  Tex.  303;  Green  r.  Morris  etc.  R  It.  Co.,  1 
Beasley,  Ki.") ;  Iludon  r.  "Ware,  15  Ala.  149;  Cooke  r.  Nathan,  IG  Barb. 
342;  Reservoir  Co.  r.  Chase,  14  Ct.  123. 


I(K)  MISTAKi:. 

anotluT  an  I'^tatc  wliicli  in  tnitli  l>cl(>ii_i,'0(l  to  him,  (.••iiiity  will 
wrdcr  tlio  i>ur('hasi'-money«  to  he  rt'fundcd.*  So  also  wliero  the 
sccoiul  of  thivr  hrolluTs  haviiiLT  <rn'il,  flu'  ihk'st,  who  liad 
ontorod  upi>ii  liis  deceased  hrother's  share,  ai^reed  to  <livide  it 
witlj  liis  voiiiiirest  hrother,  upon  the  representation  of  a  third 
j)arty  wlioni  the  two  Itrothers  l\ad  eonsulted,  that,  as  hind 
eould  not  ascend,  the  youni^est  hmtlu  r  was  heir  to  the  second, 
and  ixecntc"!  a  conveyance  accord in<;;ly,  Lord  King  relieved 
the  eldest  hrother  against  the  instrument.'' 

It'  the  mistake  of  law,  or  as  to  his  ])rivate  right  he  that  of 
<.ne  I'urty  oidy  to  a  transaction,  it  may  he  either  that  the  mis- 
take was  induced  or  encouraged  l»y  the  misrepresentation  of 
the  other  ]»artv,  or  that,  though  not  so  iiuluced  or  encouraged, 
it  was  known  to  aiul  perceived  by  him,  and  was  taken  advan- 
taire  of,  or  it  may  he  that  he  was  not  aware  of  mistake.  What- 
ever mav  he  circumstances  of  the  case,  a  court  of  equity  may, 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  (»f  the  case,  grant  relief.* 
Hut  if  it  ai)pear  that  the  mistake  was  imluced  or  encouraged 
hv  the  misrepresentation  of  the  other  ]>arty  to  the  transaction,' 

'  nini,'liam  «•.  Bintrliam,  1  Vcs.  120.  '  Sc'.iolli.'ld    i-.   Tvinpl.T.  Joliii.    ICO; 

'  LniiMlowiic    r.    L:iii:?ilowue,    Mose.       Coopir   r.    l'llU>b^',    I..   11    2;  A  pp.  Co, 
364;  fit.  2  J.  A  \V.  205.  Hit,  supra,  pp.  12,  48. 


♦  Skillnmn  r  Tcople,  S:ixton,  232;  BJgclow  r.  Harr.  4  Ohio,  l^.-iS;  Wil- 
lianiB  r.  Champion,  G  Oliio,  109:  Sparks  r.  AVhitcT  lluinpli.  H(S;  Luwrcnrc 
r.  Bcauhit-n.  2  IJaili-y.  ('>2:J. 

Wlun  a  contract  is  matlu  in  i-,niorancc  of  tlic  cxislcnci-  of  any  ri;:ht  or 
litle  in  thf  party,  it  may  be  set  asi<k'.  So  also  if  it  is  ma.lc  with  thr 
knowh«l;,'fof  tlie  cxiBtcncc  of  some  rifrht,  hut  in  i^niorancc  of  any  matirial 
fact  aff.ctinj,'  the  matter  or  value  of  tlic  right  or  title,  es-ieutial  to  llic 
ihanwter  of  the  contract  and  an  ellicient  cau.sc  in  it»  concoction.  Tri^g 
r.  Head,  r,  IInnii>h.  r.JU. 

Tiie  ca-^e  in  whi<  h  an  interference  \\«nh\  !.<•  projirr  win  re  a  jiarty  ha.s 
c-ntt-rcd  into  an  agreement  un.ler  a  mi-take  in  regaol  l«)  the  constniction 
of  an  instniment  up<m  which  his  riglits  depended,  nuist  show  a  very 
plain  char  mistake.  Winlermute  r.  Bnyler,  2  Green's  Vh.  4sO;  Dtipre  r. 
ThompHon,  4  I5arh.  279;  (  laylon  r.  IJuniey,  '.W  (Jen.  910;  Ihirl  r.  Wilson, 
2b  Cal.  0^2. 


MISTAKE.  iOl 

or  was  jKTceivfd   l)y  liiiii   and   taken  a(lvanta;i;o  of,  tli<;  court 
will    1h' more  disposed  to  grant  relief  than    in   cases  wliorc  it 
docs    not    ai)i)ear    lliat    lie    was    aware    nf   the    mistake.'      In 
Broiighton  v.  llutt,"  where  tlic  lieir-at-hiw  of  a  shareholder  in 
}i  eonij)any,  the  shares  in  wliicli  were  personal  estate,  8upj)0.s- 
ing  liiniself,  tlintugli  ignorance  of  law,  to  be  liable  in  respect 
of  the  shares,  had  executed  a  deed  taking  the  liability  on  him- 
self, it  was  held   that  he  was  entitled  to  have  the  deed  can- 
celled.    So  also  Avhere  a  man  having  a  legal  security  gave  it 
up  in  exchange  for  another  security,  upon  the  faith  that  the 
right  which  lie  gave  up  would  be  secured  to  liini  by  the  sub- 
stituted security,  but  the   substituted  security  jinned  to   be  a 
mere  nullity  in  law,  relief  was  given.'    So  also  where  a  woman 
renewed  a  note,  believing  that  she  was  liable  on  the  original 
note,  relief  was  given.*     So  also  where  a  sister,  being  ignorant 
of  her  rights  under  a  settlement,  released  her  rights   to  a 
brother,  the  release   was  held  not  binding  on  her.^     So  also 
where  the  daughter  of  a  freeman  of  London  accepted  of  a 
legacy  left  her  by  her  fjither,  and  released  her  orphanage  part 
according  to  the  custom  of  London,   and  it  did  not  appear, 
though  she  was  told  she  might  elect  between  the  legacy  and  the 
orphanage  part,  that  she  knew  she  had  a  right  to  inijuire  into 
the  value  of  the  personal  estate  and  the  quantum  of  the  orphan- 
age part  before  making  her  election,  the  release  was  set  aside.' 
The  same  considerations  should,  it  would  seem,  apply  to 
the  case  of  the  payment  of  money  under  a  mistake  of  law ; ' 
but  it  appears  from  the  authorities  to  be  established  in  e'juity 
as  well  as  at  law,  that  money  paid  under  a  mistake  of  law,  with 

'Cocking    r.    Pratt,    1    Yes.     400;  r.  Spencer,   1   Vern.   3'2 ;    MilJraay  v. 

M'Cnrty   v.   Decaix,   2  R.  A   M.   614;  IIun;;erfor(l,  2  Vcrn.  24.?. 

Sturfje     »'.    Sturge,     12    Bcav.    229;  Howanl  c.  Hughes,  1  K.  A  J.  443. 

liroiigliton  v.  llutt.  3   I).  <fe  J.  r.Ol ;  see  *  Ranisdcn  >•.  Hvlton.  2  Yes.  304. 

Worslcy  v.  Frank,  11  L.  T.  392.  •  I'uscy  v.  Desb'ouvcric,  3  V.  W.  315. 

'  3  I),  cfc  J.  501.  •  See  Clifton  t-.  Cockburn.  3  M.  &  K. 

*  Jic  Saxon  Life  Assurance  Co.,  2  J.  90  ;  Davis  r.  Morior,  2  Coll.  308 ;  Cooper 

<fc  U.  408;  1   D.  J.  <t  S.  29.     See  Gee  v.  I'liibbs,  17  Ir.  Ch.  82. 


lO'J 


M1SL\KK. 


lull  knowloil^c  of  the  tacts,  is  nut  rt'CKVcraMi*,  aiul  that  even 
a  promise  to  ]>ay,  upon  ii  supposed  lialiility,  and  in  ii^no- 
rance  of  the  law,  will  hind  tin-  party.* '^^  Ihit  tin-  i-uU-  is  liahle 
to  a  (jualiticatioii,  if  the  man  to  whom  ninucy  has  heeii  paid 
h!U>  been  at'cessory  t(»  the  error  of  the  other  i»arty,  or  has  <j^ot 
some  one  to  misinform  him  of  the  law.'  li'  the  law  mistaken 
is  the  law  of  a  foreign  state,  the  mistake  is  regarded  as  a  mis- 
take of  faet.' 

In  Davis  v.  Morier,*  where  a  person  liad  by  mistake  re- 
ceived lV>r  some  years  a  less  income  than  he  was  entitled  to 
imder  a  marriage  settlement,  it  was  held  that  he  was  under  the 
eireumstances  of  the  case  entitled  to  have  the  difference  paid 
to  him  out  of  the  estate  of  the  deceased  settler. 


•  Bill>io  V.  Lurnloy.  2  Eost,  4r)9 ;  Stc- 
vene  i;.  Lynch.  I'i  Kast.  ;}8;  IJiisbftiie  c 
l)ncre*,  .'i  Taunt.  Mo;  Cooilinan  r.  Suy- 
ors,  2  J.  <t  \V.  2f.;i ;  Currio  i:  (io«ilil,  2 
Ma'dtl.  1">:{;  I'rewrv  v.  Humes,  :i  Uuss. 
m  ;  \\\'b\>  r.  I!ro..k<'8.  1  L.  .1.  Ch.  N.  S. 
I'tl  ;  (Jrcftt  WfstiTn  Kail  way  Co.  r. 
Crijip-,  5  lltt.  1»1 ;  IMatt  v.  lJr()'inai,'o,  2i 
L.  J.  K.\ch.  «;:J;  Bate  v.  lhn>]t<r,  r^  1). 
M.  <k  a.  3:JS;  Stair.ir.l  v.  StallunI,  1  I>. 
<t  J.  r.'7  ;  Saitmarslic  v.  IJarrott.  lU  L. 
J  C'li.  "!>>'■>.  Se  •  .Moore  r.  Muore,  1  Coll. 
64.  Where  money  had  heeii  jtaiil  for 
many  years  without  thduelini:  the  lanil- 
tax,"  no  deductiou   was  alterwurdd  al- 


lowed out  of  tho  subsequent  payments. 
Nieliolls  t».  Lo^siin,  U  .\tk.  Tu^.  So, nl.so, 
where  nil  executor  hail  paid  interest  for 
seventeeti  years  witimut  deduetiii;:^  tho 
property-tax.  it  wa^  lieM  he  couUl  not 
afterwards  deduet  out  of  the  future  in- 
terests due  the  amount  of  j)roj»erty-tax 
on  such  precedent  pavmenU.  Currio  v. 
Goold,  2  .Madd.  lt;:{.  " 

'  l)ixotis  c.  .Moiikiand  Cannl,  6  Wills, 
it  Sh.  Sc.  Ap.  n.-i 

'Haven  i'.  I'o-ter,  H  Pick.  (.\mer.) 
112.     Sec  Leslie  t'.  IJuiilie,  2  V.  it  C.  C. 

c.  yi. 

«  2  Coll.  303. 


*  Elliott  r.  Swartout,  10  Pet.  137;  Bank  of  United  States  r.  Daniel,  13 
Pet.  :J2;  lluven  r.  Foster,  'J  Pick.  112;  Wheaton  r.  Wheaton,  9("t. 'JO; 
Pinkham  r.  Gear,  :}  N.  II.  10:i;  Hubbard  r.  Martin,  8  Yeri,'.  lUH;  Kjr,.  p. 
Koontz.  3  Barr,  lOD;  Jones  r.  Watkins,  1  Stew,  bl ;  Lyou  r.  Talhuadge, 
14  Johns.  r,2G;  Clark  r.  Dutehcr,  9  Cow.  074. 

"SVlKn  money  is  jiaid  by  one  under  a  nii.stukc  of  his  rij^hts  and  hi-* 
«liitv,  and  \\liiih  lie  was  under  no  lejjal  or  nn»ral  obli;:ation  to  pay,  and 
which  the  recipient  has  no  ri;;ht  in  j,'ood  con.Hcience  to  retain,  it  may  be 
recovered  back  whether  siieh  mistake  bo  one  of  law  or  of  fact.  Northrop 
r.  Gravc-8, 19  Ct.  54  H. 

Payment  by  nn  a<lministrator  under  a  mistake  of  law  to  a  jx-rson  not 
entitled,  flocH  not  relieve  him  from  liability,  altliouuh  the  parly  really  en- 
tilled  kniw  of  the  payuK-nt  and  male  no  objection.  Davis  r.  Hayley,  40 
Geo.  IWI. 


MisTAKi:.  403 

AVIietlicT  iiioin'V  jiaid  uiidcr  mistake  of  l:iw  can  lie  reclaimed 
is  a  suhject  \vliic-li  lias  Inl  t<i  luin'Ii  (liUL-roiR-o  of  t>\)\\i\ou  anion"" 
civilians  and  the  cununentatuis  i«n  the  Jtonian  law.  The  old 
school  of  lawjers  were  of  opinion  that  money  paid  under  mis- 
take of  law  inii!;ht  be  recovered  back.  l>ut  Cnjas  maintained 
an  opposite  opinion,  and  lie  was  followed  by  Potliier  and 
others;  Vinnius,  Iiowcmt,  Ilubcrand  I  )^Vguesseau  supported 
the  doctrine  of  the  earlier  school.^  The  framers  of  the  Code 
Xapoleon  adopted  their  ojjinion,  and  declared,  in  general  terms, 
that  money  paid  under  mistake  may  be  recovered  back,  making 
no  distinction,  in  this  respect,  between  mistake  of  law  and  mis- 
take of  fact.'^  The  earlier  authorities  on  the  Scottish  law  are 
in  favor  of  the  doctrine  that  money  paid  under  mistake  of  law 
may  be  recovered  back.^  In  two  cases,  however,^  Lord 
Brougham  laid  it  down  that  at  Scotch  law  money  paid  under 
mistake  of  law  is  not  recoverable.  I'ut  there  is  much  reason 
to  doubt  whether  the  rule  so  laid  down  by  him  can  be  accepted 
as  a  sound  exposition  of  the  Scotch  law.  His  judgment  wad 
founded  solely  on  two  English  common-law  authorities.' 

Mistake  in  law  is  not  a  ground  for  setting  aside  a  compro- 
mise, if  the  parties  to  the  transaction  were  in  difficulty  and 
doubt,  and  wished  to  put  an  end  to  disputes,  and  to  terminate 
or  avoid  litigation.  If  one  or  more  parties,  having,  or  su])- 
posing  they  have,  claims  upon  a  given  subject  matter,  or  claims 
against  each  other,  agree  to  compromise  these  claims,  and  the 
knowledge,  or  means  of  knowledge,  of  each  of  them  witli 
respect  to  the  mode  in  which,  and  the  circumstances  under 
which,  his  claim  arises,  stand  upon  an  equal  footing,  and  there 
is  an  absence  of  fraud  or  misrepresentation,  the  transaction  is 


'  See    Pothicr,    Obi.    translatod  by      398 ;  Dixons  v.  Monkland  Conal  Co.,  5 

Evans,  \]>]\  vol.  II,  pp.  408-437.  "Wills,  d-  Sh.  41.'). 

'  Co.l.  Civ.  1377.  '  IJilbic  v.  Luiiilov.  2  East,  4C9;  Bris- 

'  Mor.  Diet.  Dec.  2930,  2931.  banc  v.  Dacns,  5  Taunt.  143. 

*  Wilson   V.  I^inclair,  4  Wills.  &  Sli, 


^<>i  MISTAKE. 

liindiiiir,  altlKni^h  tlie  coneluj?ion  at  which  thi*  j^artics  may  have 
arrived  is  not  tliat  wliich  a  court  <»f  justice  wouUl  huvo  arrivuil 
at  had  its  decision  been  sought.  The  real  consideration  whicli 
each  party  receives  under  a  coinpniniise  heinjj:,  not  the  nacrilice 
of  the  riglit,  hut  the  settlement  of  the  dispute,  a:id  the  aljan- 
donment  of  the  claim,  it  is  no  objection  to  the  validity  of  the 
transaction  that  the  riirht  was  really  in  one  of  the  parties  only, 
anil  that  the  others  had  no  ri^lit  wliate\er.  If,  for  instance, 
two  ])arties  claim  adversely  to  each  other  the  inheritance  of  a 
deceased  person,  and,  in  order  to  avoid  litigation,  agree  to 
divide  the  inheritance,  it  is  no  ground  for  setting  aside  tiie 
agreement  that  only  one  was  lieir,  and  that  the  other  gave  up 
the  right  which  he  really  possessed.  The  fact  that  the  one  may 
liave  had  no  claim  is  immaterial,  if  he  was  honestly  mistaken 
as  to  his  claim.  It  is  enough  if  at  the  time  of  the  compromise 
he  may  have  believed  he  had  a  claim,  and  that  the  parties  have, 
by  the  traii>action,  avoide(l  the  necessity  of  g(»ing  to  law.*  " 
To  render  valid  the  compromise  of  a  litigation,  it  is  not  even 
necessary  that  the  question  in  dispute  should  really  be  doubt- 
ful, if  the  parties  lond  Jide  consider  it  ti>  be  so.  It  is  enough 
to  render  a  compromise  valid,  that  there  is  a  question  to  be 
decided  between  them.*  A  compromise  of  doubtful  rights  will 
not  be  set  aside  on  anv  other  groun<l  than  fraud.^ 


'  Stnialton  v.   Stniiilton,   1   Atk.   10;  87;  Pnrfridgc  ».  Stoph(>n<i,  9  .Tur.  N.  S. 

(ionloii  V.  (Jdriloii,  :t  Sw.  -li'i:};   Lt'oniird  71".!;  Triiri;i!  v.  LnvalUV,  l.'»  Moo.  1'.  ('. 

V.  I^-oriard.  "i  \U\.  <k  Ik-.  179;  Nnylor  ».  ii7t»;  Uulloi-k  v.  Dowihm.    «   JI.    L.    l; 

Witidi,  1  Sim.  .t  St.  r.r.5.  7  L.  J.  I'll,  tl;  1;    I5roi)ko  r.   Lonl  Mostyn,  'i  D.  J.  «k 

llnrvi'V  V.  Cooke,  1  IUimm.  :!|  ;   AUwootl  S.  'MW;  Lord  bcllmvcii'ii  Case,  a  IJ.  .1. 

i..  1,  6  lUiHrt.   Hit;  SHwurl  v.  Stew-  «!:  S.  41. 

art.  fiCI.  <!:  Fin.  «('.«;  rickoriii;:  r.  rick-  '  Ktj>arte  Lnrv.  1   D.    M.   ,t  G.  350. 

friri^,  'i  li»*av.  6rt ,  Kcyncll  v.  Spryo.  8  See  Nfidf  v.  Nt-alc,  1  Ki-cii,  072. 

Iln.  t'1'1, 'l'>\  :  Iit-/Ktr'lr  Liiry,   4  1).  M.  '  Urooko  t'.  l.onl  .Mostyii,  U  1>.  J.  «t 

«!:  G.  ;J5C;  I^jiwlon  f.  C"aiiii>i<»ii,  Is  Uoiiv.  S.  .'!7;{,  «My/r<i,  pp.  7U,  h". 


•  A  compromirtc  made  under  a  mistake  of  low  may  be  sot  osido  if  there 
iH  undue  influence.     Wheeler  r.  Smith,  9  IIow.  !>!). 

\  eonipromiso  mudr  under  a  nuitual  miHtakc  of  fact  may  be  sot  asida 
Nalx>»r»  r.  Cocke,  21  Mi-ts.  11. 


MISTAKE.  405 

Tlio  jurisclicti'm  of  oijuity  over  mistake  is  exercised  iiukIi 
mure  lil)cr;iliy  wlicn^  tin;  mi.stako  i.s  in  mutter  of  fact,  tliuii 
where  it  is  in  ma(ter  of  law.  The  admission  of  i;;noranee  ef 
fact  as  a  ground  of  relief,  is  n(jt  attended  with  those  incon- 
veniences wliieli  seem  to  be  the  reason  for  rejecting  ignorance 
of  law  as  a  valid  excuse.  Whether  tlie  ignorance  really  existed, 
and  whether  it  was  imputahle  or  not  to  the  inadvertence  of  the 
])arty,  is  a  question  which  may  be  solved  by  looking  at  the 
circumstance  of  the  case.  The  inquiry  is  limited  to  a  given 
incident,  and  to  the  circumstances  attending  that  incident,  and 
is,  therefore,  not  interminable.^"" 

According  to  Savigny,  ignorance  has  not,  as  such,  any 
effect  upon  the  legal  consequences  of  an  act  or  transaction  in 
which  it  occurs.  The  effect  generally  attributed  to  ignorance 
is  properly  attributable  to  the  negligence  which  is  the  cause  of 
it.  Tirnorance  which  is  not  tlie  effect  of  gross  negligence  is  not 
]>rejudicial  to  the  ignorant  party,  but  ignorance  which  is  the 
effect  of  such  negligence  is  prejudicial  to  him.  Whether  ig- 
norance be  or  be  not  the  result  of  gross  negligence,  depends  on 

■  Austin  Jiir.  vol.  II,  p.  172. 


*  Kctcluim  r.  Catlin,  21  Vt.  191 ;  Whcadon  r.  Olds,  2  Wend.  174  ;  i^Icr- 
chants'  Bank  v,  Mclntyre,  2  Sandf.  431 ;  Miles  v.  SLevens,  3  Barr.  21. 

No  pei*son  can  be  presumed  to  he  acquainted  with  all  matters  of  fact, 
nor  is  it  possible  by  any  degree  of  vigilance  in  all  cases  to  acquire  that 
knowledge;  and  for  this  reason  a  court  of  equity  is  liberal  in  granting  re- 
lief to  prevent  injustice  where  the  party  asking  it  cannot  be  charged  witli 
culpable  negligence.     Jenks  v.  Fritz,  7  W.  «&  S.  201. 

xV  court  of  equity  will  relieve  against  a  material  mistake  as  to  tlie 
quantity  of  land  purporting  to  be  conveyed  by  a  deed.  "Wiley  r.  Fitz- 
patrick,  3  J.  J.  ]\Iarsh.  552 ;  Crane  r.  Prather,  4  J.  J.  Marsh.  75. 

"When  the  contract  is  for  a  definite  quantity,  and  the  vendor  makes  a 
mistake  as  to  the  mode  of  mea3urement,  there  can  be  no  relief  by  injunc- 
tion against  the  greater  us.',  although  the  vendee  was  under  the  same  mis- 
apprehension.    McKclway  r.  Cook,  3  Green's  Ch.  103. 

When  a  skilltui  porson,  in  the  perfonnance  of  a  mere  ministerial  duty, 
makes  an  error  in  the  admeasurement  of  land,  tlie  mistake  may  be  corrected. 
Jenks  r.  Fritz,  7  W.  &  S.  201;  Whaley  p.  Elliott,  I  A.  K.  Marsh.  343; 
Gilmore  r.  Morgan,  2  J.  J.  Marsh.  65. 


IOC.  MISTAKE. 

circumstances;  it  is  prcsiimotl  to  In'  so  M-Iion  ;i  man  is  ii^noraiit 
of  the  i^i'Mcral  laws  ot'  his  cMuntry,  or  ot'  his  own  alVaii's,  l)iit  it 
is  not  so  presumed  wlicn  lie  is  ignorant  of  otlior  matters.  The 
prcsumpti(m  which  arises  in  cadi  of  tliese  cases  is  re])uttahlc, 
but  is  conchisivo  if  not  rebutted  by  the  person  aij^aiiist  whom 
it  arises.  Ignorance  of  matters  of  law  and  ignorance  of  mat- 
tei-s  of  fact,  are  thus  phiccd  on  the  same  footing;  both  are  j.re- 
judicial  when  tlic  result  of  gross  negligence ;  both  are  harm- 
less when  not  so.* 

Mistake  of  fact  is  a  mistake  nut  caused  by  the  neglect  of 
legal  duty  on  the  part  of  the  person  making  the  mistake,' 
and  consisting  in  an  unconsciousness,'  ignorance,*  or  forgetful- 
ness'  of  a  fact  past^  or  present,' material  to  the  transaction  ;  or 
in  the  belief  in  the  present  existence  of  a  thing  material  to  the 
transaction,  which  does  not  exist,^  or  in  the  past  existence  of  a 
thin^  which  has  not  existed.® 

In  ''  fraud,''  as  distinguished  from  "  mistake,"  there  is,  ne- 
cessarily, a  misapprehension  or  mistake  in  the  party  defrauded, 
whicb  alone  would  not  vitiate  his  dealings  with  others ;  but 
there  is  the  additional  circumstance  that  the  party  with  whom 
be  deals  intentionally  causes  the  mistake  for  the  jnirpose  of 
oflecting  the  dealing,  and  this  precludes  the  i)arty  so  occasion- 
ing the  mistake  from  holding  the  other  bound  to  it.'" 

What  is  the  nature  or  degree  of  mistake  which  is  rclievable 
in  equitv,  as  distinguished  from  mistake  which  is  due  to  negli- 

•Lindlcvon.Tur.  Ai-p.  p.  r.>.  '^T.'.;    Willan   v.    Will.in.   Irt    Vo«.    72; 

•  New  York  Civil  Co.lc.  Art  7t'.2.  MTnrthy  f.  Docnix.  2  R.  .t  M.  fill. 
•Sec  Kflly  v.  Solnri.  9  M.  A  W.  54.  '  See  Cocking  v.  rriiU.   1   Vos.    100; 

•  See  Cockin"  v.  Tratt.  1  Vc>«.  400;  Iloro  v.  Hccher.  12Sim.  JfiS;  Coiyor  v. 
FA-ot  India  Co' «.  Neftvc.  5  Vc8.  17.1;  Clay,  7  Hcav.  188;  Urou-hlon  r.  Ilutt. 
E..Ht  India  Co.   •.   Donald.  9  Ve«.  27.'.;       »  D.  A  J.  ''"l. 

II„r.-  .•    IkTl.cr.   12  Sirn.  405;   lioll  .••  '  Se..  ll.U-l.cook    v.  Culdin-s.    1   1  n. 

Gnrdin.r.  »  M.  A  C.  11.  i:i.'';  folyer  -.  Clay   7  H-av.  !«•;;:   JI"*^ 

•K.llv  ••   Solurl.  9  -M.  <t  W.  :,l  ;   Lu  lio  v.  CoiituiuT.  9  hxcli.  1«>2:  5  H.   L. 

ca<«  r   Wornwirk.  1  Moo.  A  H.  2'.t:i.  i\T.\;  Strickland  .-.  Turner.  7  Kxcli.  208; 

•  Seo  Kant  India  C<..  v.  Neave.  5  Vo<«.  Coeliranc  v.  WiUm.  L.  U.  1  Cli.  App.  58. 
173-  Ea«t  Indio  Co.  v.  Donald.  9  V.-h.  "  See  New  York  Civil  Code.  Art.  702. 

'  '•  Leako  on  ConlracUi.  1K2. 


MISTAKE.  407 

police,*  and  tliercforc  not  rolic'vul)li',  caiiiiof  well  l»o  definefl  ho 
as  to  C8tu])lisli  a  general  rule,  and  must,  in  a  great  measure,  de- 
pend on  the  discretion  of  the  court  under  all  tlic  circumstanceK 
of  tlie  case.  Though  a  court  of  equity  will  relieve  against 
mistake,  it  will  not  assist  a  man  whose  condition  is  attributable 
only  to  that  want  of  due  diligence  which  maybefoirly  expected 
from  a  reasonable  person.'^ "  Parties,  for  instance,  who,  having 
a  good  defence,  or  plain  and  complete  remedy  at  law,  have 
neglected  to  avail  themselves  of  it  there,  cannot  come  to  equity 
for  relief.'  Nor  has  a  purchaser  who  is  evicted  by  reason  of  a 
defect  in  title,  which  his  legal  adviser  has  overlooked,  an  equity 
to  recover  his  purchase  money.*  Nor  can  relief  be  had  against 
a  forfeiture,  where  a  man  who  is  charged  with  a  legal  obliga- 
tion neglects  to  perform  it.*^  So  also  where  a  sum  of  money 
was  paid  by  the  purchaser  of  an  estate  to  persons  supposed  tu 
be  entitled,  in  remainder,  to  procure  tlieir  coneuiTcnce  in  a 
recovery,  which  was  suffered,  accordingly.  Lord  Nottingham 
refused  to  direct  the  money  to  be  refunded .« 

'  (Wrrr,  pp.  93,  04.    Facti  ignorantia  key  r.  Vernon,  2  Cox,  12;  Stevens  v. 

ita  ck'inum  cuique  non  nocet,  si  uon  ei  I'raeil,  2  Ves.  Jr.  529;  Batcman  v.  Wil- 

fiiimma    nogligentia     objiciatur.     Quid  loe,  1  Scli.  &   Lef.   201 ;  Hare  v.  Ilar- 

enim   si   oiiines  in  civitate  sciant  quod  wood,  14  Ves.  31  ;  DrewTj'  v.  Barnep,  3 

ille  solus  ignorat.     Dig.  Lib.  22,  tit.  6,  Kuss.  ;t4.     See  Marquis  of  Breadalbane 

1  9,  V.  Marquis  of  Chandos,  2  iL  <fc  C.  71'J ; 

^  Duke  of  Beaufort  v.  Nceld,  12  CI.  &  Henderson  v.  Cook,  4  Drew.  306. 

Fin.  218,  286;  Leuty  v.  Ilillas,  2  D.  <t  *  Urni.ston  v.  Pate,  3  Ves.  23o,  n.    See 

J    110;  Wild  V.  llillas,  18L.  J.  Ch.  iTn.  Cator  «•.  Lord  rembroke,   1  Bro.   C.  C. 

See  Tri"-"-c  v.  Lavallee,  15  Moo.  P.  C.  3nl ;  2  Bro.  C.  C.  282 ;  Thomas  v.  Fow- 

270.       '"  cll.  2  Cox,  394. 

'Stephenson  v.  Wilson,  2  Vern.  325 ;  '  Gregory  v.  Wilson,  9  Ha.  683,  689. 

Blackhall  v.  Coombs,  2  P.  W'.  70;  Hoi-  "  Mayuard  v.  Moseley,  3  Sw.  661. 
worthy  v.  Mortlock,  1  Cox,  141 ;  Han- 


*  Western  R.  Ti.  Co.  v.  Bnhcock,  8  Met.  340 ;  Fcrson  r.  Sanger,  1  Wood 
&,  Min.  138;  Wood  r.  Patterson,  4  Md.  Cb.  335;  Capehart  r.  Moon,  3 
Jones'  Eq.  178;  Diman  t.  rrovidence  &c.  R  R.  Co.,  5  li.  I.  130;  Lamb  v. 
Harris,  8  Geo.  540. 

Where  the  means  of  inquiry  are  equally  open  to  both  parties,  if  a  mis- 
take ocenr  wilbout  any  fraud  or  falsehood,  no  relief  can  be  trranted  on 
account  of  the  mistake  alone,     Daniel  r.  ilitchcll,  1  Storj-,  172;  Warner 


lOS  MISTAKi:. 

^lititake  in  luatttr  of  law  ov  inatti-r  nf  fact,  ti»  l»i'  a  •xroiimi 
for  c»iuitnl)lc  rt'liof,  inii>t  \yr  ot"  a  iiiatirial  iiatiiii',  and  must  be 
the  dctorinininj:  ixround  of  tlie  transaction.  A  man  wlio  seeks 
relief  a<;ainst  mistake,  must  be  able  to  satisfy  the  court  that 
his  eoiitluct  has  been  determined  by  the  mi>take.  ^listake  in 
matters  which  arc  only  incidental  to,  and  are  nut  of  the  essence 
of  H  transaction,  and  without,  or  in  tlie  absence  of  which  it  is 
reasonable  to  infer  that  the  transaction  W(»uld  nevertheless  have 
taken  place,  p)es  for  nothing.*  If  the  mistake  has  not  been 
the  only  cause  by  which  the  conduct  of  a  man  has  been  in- 
duced, but  another  motive  has  intervene(l,  tlie  mistake  cannot 
be  set  up  as  a  ground  for  relief.*  ^>'or,  iii(U'c(l,  does  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  mistake  may  be  in  a  material  matter  always 
of  itself  entitle  u  nuui  to  the  interposition  of  the  court.  The 
law  d(»es  not  go  the  length  of  requiring  that  ])arties  who  deal 
with  each  other  at  arms'  length,  should  be  on  the  same  level  as 
to  infonnatiou  and  knowledge.  If  parties  stand  upon  an  ecpial 
footing,  and  the  means  of  infornwition  and  knowledge  arc  o])en 
to  them  both,  either  of  them  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  his 
own  judgment,  skill,  and  sagacity.  If  the  parties  act  other- 
wise fairly  in  the  transaction,  and  it  is  not  a  case  in  which  one 
of  them   is   bound,  upon   the  ground  of  contidence,  vr  othcr- 

•  Stone  p.  Oodfn'y,  ft  D.  M.  ACt.  7i">:  1;  Domnt.   I.iv.   1,  tit.   IS.  8cc.   1.  nrt. 

Carpiiinel  v.  I'owiH.  hi  Ik-nv.  '.)'J;  Tri;;pc  ia-I7  ;  'IVuill.  Cod.  Civ.  Liv,  3,  c.  U,  ». 

r.  l-avnll.'e,   i:>   Moo.   1*.    C.   21>\.     S.o  2,  nrt.  1-1. 
I'otli.  <)bli;jc.  part  1,  c.  1,  a.   1,  art.  li,  s. 


r.  Daniils,  1  "Wdod  &  Miii.  W) ;  Hill  r.  Btisli,  10  .\ik.  oC'J ;  .loii/in  r.  Toul- 
uiin,  'J  Ala.  W2. 

A  niiBundiTBtnmlinj;  iK'twecn  a  party  aiul  lib  nltoriu-y  result in;jr  in  n 
failure  to  file  a  J'lea,  is  jjrosB  ni-gligciicu,  and  not  good  giouinl  for  nlief. 
Kite  t.  Ltinipkin,  40  (Jco,  500. 

•  M'Firran  r.  Taylor,  :J  C'rancli,  208  ;  Weaver  r.  ('art«r,  10  L<'igh,  ;J7; 
Hcgiir  r.  ringley,  1 1  Ct  \'M;  Tiii;^'  r.  Hea<l.  5  IIuuipli.  .'iC'J  ;  liar  rod  p. 
Cowan,  llanlin,  512. 

A  mutual  miMtake  in  nganl  to  the  title  to  pr.  p' riy  is  u  ground  loi 
rmcinding  a  conlrnet.     Haddock  r.  William^,  10  Vt.  .')70. 


MISTAKE.  409 

wise,  to  make  a  disclosure  to  tlio  other  al'  matters  aflectiii^  the 
subject-matter  in  respect  ol"  w  hicli  tlicy  arc  dealing',  the  i-ourt 
will  imt.  intci-lcre.  A  man  cannot  liavc  relict'  on  the  ^'rouinl 
of  mistake,  unless  the  party  benefited  by  the  mistake  is 
disentitled  in  ecpiity  and  conscience  from  retaining  the  advan- 
tage which  he  has  acquired.^  * 

Mistake  of  fact  may  be  the  mistake  of  one  i)arty  oidy  to  a 
contract,  or  there  may  be  a  mistake  of  both  parties  respecting 
the  same  matter ;  and  thus  there  arise  two  different  conditions 
of  the  questions,  which  are  governed  by  considerations  of  a 
different  character. 

The  mistake  of  one  party  only  is  attended  by  different 
consequences,  accordingly  as  the  other  party  is  or  is  not 
cognizant  of  the  mistake. 

The  law  judges  of  an  agreement  between  two  persons 
exclusively  from  those  expressions  of  their  intention,  which 
are  communicated  between  them ;  consequently,  an  agreement 
cannot  be  affected  by  the  mistake  of  either  party  in  expressing 
his  intention,  or  in  his  motives,  of  which  the  other  party  has 
no  knowledge ;  and  the  jjarty  who  has  entered  into  an  agree- 
raent  under  such  a  mistake,  is  bound  by  the  agreement 
actually  made,  and  cannot  assert  his  mistake  in  avoidance  of 
the  agreement  at  law,^  or  in  equity.^ f 

•  1  Fonb.  Eq.  B.  1,  c.  2,  §  7;  Story  "  Leake  on  Contracts,  168. 

Eq.  Jur.   147,  151  ;  Warner  v.  Daniels,  '  See    Staj\vIton   v.    Scott,    13   Vea. 

1  Wood  tk  Min,  (Amer.)  90,  s;//)ra,  pp.  427;  Alv:inltv  ;•.  Kiiinnirtl,  2  Mac.  <k 

63,  54,  57.  ti.  7;  Cox  v.  Bruton,  5  W.  U.  644. 


*  McCobb  V.  Richardson,  24  Me.  82 ;  Crowder  r.  Langdon,  3  Ired.  Eq. 
476 ;  Hunter  v.  Goudy,  1  Ohio,  449. 

t  Lies  r.  Stubb,  6  Watts,  48;  Farley  v.  Bryant,  32  Me.  474;  Coffing  r. 
Taylor,  16  111.  457. 

It  is  not  enough  to  show  the  sense  and  intention  of  one  of  the  parties 

to  the  contract.     It  must  be  shown  incontroveitibly  that  the  sense  and 

intention  of  the  other  party  concurred  in  it;  in  other  words,  it  must  be 

proved  that  they  both  understood  the  contract,  as  it  is  alleged  it  ought  to 

27 


•110  MisTMcn. 

Tpon  tliis  jtriiu'iplc  it  is  not  c-oinpotcnt,  in  the  case  of  a 
written  nijivcnu'nt,  for  I'ltlicr  of  tlie  ]>arties  to  avoid  its  efVcct 
bv  nierelv  sliow  iis:^'  that  he  umlci^todd  tlic  terms  in  a  dilli'ivnt 
sense  from  tliat  Mliieli  they  bear  in  their  irrammatical  con- 
ptruction  an<l  le<^al  eifeet.^  In  special  cases,  liowever,  and 
under  special  circi}nistances,  a  court  of  eipiity  may,  as  has 
been  already  stated,  relieve  a  party  who  has,  under  a  mis- 
take of  his  ])rivate  rii,dits,  been  induced  to  jiart  with  his 
property.^ 

When  a  party  is  nii.-taken  in  his  motives  for  cntcriuij  into 
a  contract,  or  in  his  expectations  respectinj^  it,  such  mistake 
does  not  aftect  the  validity  of  the  contract.  If  a  man  pur- 
chases a  sjiecitic  article,  believini;  that  it  will  answer  a 
particular  jturpose  to  which  he  intends  to  put  it,  and  it  fails 
to  do  60,  he  is  not  the  less  on  that  account  .bound  to  pay  for 
it.*     In  Cumhcrlcgc  v.  Lawson*  where  a   person  executed  a 

«  Loakc  on  Contrncts.  169.  309 ;  Ollivnnt  v.  B.-xylfy.  .1  Q.  B.  288; 

•  Mi-nilows    V.   Meadows,    IG  Bcnv.  Leake  on  C'()titi-att>^,  lO'J,  4«/(ru,  p.  63. 
404.  Kupra,  p.  333.                                                  M  C.  J5.  N.  S.  TUO. 

*  Chanter   v.   Uopkins,  4  M.  it    W . 


have  lx?cn,  and  in  fact  it  was,  but  for  the  mistake.  If  it  ho  clearly  shown 
that  the  intention  of  one  of  tlie  parties  is  mistaken  aad  misrcpri'-cntod  by 
the  written  contract,  that  cainiot  avail  unless  it  be  further  shown  that  the 
other  jiartv  ;i;.'ree<l  to  it  in  the  same  wiiy,  and  that  tlie  intention  of  both 
of  them  was  by  mistake  misrepresented  by  the  eontnict.  Lvman  r.  Utiea 
Ins.  Cc».,  17  Johns.  37:J;  Nevius  r.  Diinlap.  'M  N.  Y.  070;  "NVemple  r.  Stew- 
urt,  22  Uarl>.  151;  KutTner  r.  McConnell,  17  111.  212;  Gorderc  r.  Downing, 
1«  III.  492. 

When  parties  have  a  difTerent  imderstanding  of  the  import  of  their 
contract,  the  appropriate  reli<f  is  not  to  reform  the  contract  Init  to  set  it 
aaide.     UcUowh  r.  hleno,  M  N.  II.  lITu 

A  court  of  equity  can  not  insert  a  Htii)ulation  which  was  intentionally 
omitted  from  the  contract.     IJetts  r.  Gunn,  .*)1  Ala.  210. 

When  the  claiiso  souf.dit  to  beinnerted  is  not  one  that  has  been  omitted 
bv  mist.ike,  bnt  is  merely  one  tliat  ouj;ht.  as  a  matter  of  j:ropriety,  to  bo 
inierted,  no  relief  can  be  granted.  Thompson  Scale  Manuf.  Co.  v.  Osgood, 
20  Ct.  10. 


MIS'l'AKi:.  411 

<lce<l  ill  flic  ImHcI'  lli;if  allot  her  jxt^oii  would  also  cxecuto  it, 
liiit  did  Hot  dclivc'i"  it  as  an  cscniw,  (•(didilioiial  iijMdi  ,-ucli 
execution,  aii<l  was  not  Ix-li-aycd  into  cxccutini;  it  hy  any 
fraud  or  niisrc'j)rcsentation,  lie  M-as  licld  l)ound  by  the  deed, 
altliougli  tlie  person  expected  hy  liini  to  execute  it  liiiled  to  do 
80.*  So  also  wlien  a  person  Iteing  desirous  of  becoming  a 
freelioMer  in  Essex,  contracted  to  j)nrcliasc  a  house  on  the 
north  bide  of  the  river  Tliames,  Avliicli  he  supposed  to  be  in 
that  county,  but  wliicli  proved  to  be  in  Kent,  the  contract  was 
lield  binding,  and  he  was  compelled  in  equity  to  complete  the 
purchase.^ 

A  court  of  equity  will,  however,  in  many  cases  refuse  to 
grant  a  ])laintilF  the  peculiar  remedy  of  specific  performance  of 
a  contract,  which  the  defendant  has  entered  into  under  a  mis- 
take, although  the  plaintiff  was  not  privy  to  the  mistake,  or 
implicated  in  its  origin.  A  man  who  seeks  to  take  advantage  of 
the  plain  mistake  of  another,  cannot  come  to  a  court  of  equity 
to  assist  liim  in  doing  so,  but  must  rest  satisfied  with  the 
remedies  Avhicli  a  court  of  law^  will  give  him.^-'  A  court  of 
equity  will  not  enforce  specific  performance  of  an  agreement 
more  favoralde  to  the  one  party  than  the  other,  and  involving 
hardship  upon  him,  if  there  be  reasonable  grounds  for  doubt- 
ing whether  he  entered  into  it  with  a  knowledge  of  its  nature 
and  consequences.*  The  court  will  not  compel  a  man  speci- 
fically to  perform  a  contract  which  he  never  intended  to  enter 
into,  or  which  he  would  not  have  entered  into,  had  its  true 

'  Comp.  Evnns  v.  Breniridge,  2  K.  ife  fiU'i.     See  Manser  v.  Back,  G  II;i.  443, 

J.  174;  8  D.  M.  <fe  G.  luo.  447  ;  Alvanley  v.  Kinnaird,  2  Mac.  tt 

*  Shirley  v.  Davis,  cited  6  Ves.  678,  G.  7  ;  "Watson  v.  Jlarston.  4  D.  M.  &  G. 
7  Ves.  270;  but  see  1  Bro.  C.  C.  440.  230;    Falcke   v.   Gray,   4    Drew.  059; 

*  Manser  v.  Back,  6  Ila.  448  ;  Wood  Slirewsbury  and  Birniinirliani  llaihvay 
V  Scarth,  2  K.  it  J.  33.  Sec  Stapylton  Co.  r.  Nortli-Wcstcru  Kailwav  Co.  0  ij. 
V.  Scott.  13  Ves.  427.  L.  113. 

*  Vivers  v.  Tuck,  1  Moo.  P.  C.  N.  S. 


*  Coles  r.  Brown,  10  Paige,  o'2G ;  Carbcrry  r.  Tauuchill.  1  II.  it  J.  224. 


41 J  MISTAKi:. 

effect  boon  undorstood.*  *  If  tlio  doscription  of  tlio  property, 
the  subji'ot-iuattcr  of  tlio  salo,  or  tlic  trrnis  of  tlio  ooutraet  are 
ambiiiuoiis,  8o  that  thr  oiio  partv  iiiav  have  rea.soiiahlv  inadc  a 
mistake,  as  to  the  suhjoot-iiiattt-r  or  the  terms  of  the  con- 
tract, or  may  have  reasonably  pnt  a  ditieront  construction  on 
the  contract  from  that  which  was  conteniplated  by  the  otlier, 
the  court  will  not  assist  either  of  thoni  in  enforcin,!:^  the  con- 
tract against  the  c>ther.'  If  the  ]>ors(.ii  who  seeks  the  aid  of 
the  court  is  the  author  of  the  ambiguity,  or  has  in  any  way 
misled  the  other,  the  rule  apjilios  with  peculiar  force.'  But 
the  autlior  of  the  ambiguity  may  himself  have  the  benefit  (»f 
the  rule.*  Specilic  performance  nniy  be  refused,  even  when 
there  has  not  been  any  im])ropriety  of  conduct  on  the  part  of 
the  party  seeking  specific  performance,  and  the  mistake  is 
])urely  the  mistake  of  the  person  against  whom  relief  is 
sought,  if,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  appears 
ineipiitablc  that  there  should  be  specific  performance.'  A 
defendant,  for  instance,  may  resist  si>ocitic  performance  of  an 
agreement,  by  showing  that  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  stating 
the  terms  of  the  agreement  in  a  letter.® 

'  Harnett  t-.  YtUdin^f,  2  Sch.  «t  Lcf.  lluilway  Co.  v.  Donniiifrton  Hospital,  L. 

540;  Watson  i-.  Marst-.n,  4  D.  M.  &  G.  li.  1  (  ll.  App.  2f,S. 

230;    'WochI   r.  Sciirtli,  2  K.  <k  J.  33;  'Mason  c  Anuitj>£:<\   13  Vcs.   373; 

Box'cndalo    v.    Si-ale,    Ut    Ik-av.    f.Ol  ;  Iliinriiisoii  v.  I'lowos,   1  V.  A    B.  fi24  ; 

W<l>st<r  V.  ("ecU.  30  Heav.  «4 ;  Hood  v.  M..xi-y  v.  Jliirwooil,  8  .lur.  N.  S.  8U3,  10 

0"land»-r,  34  licav.  MH.  Jur.  N.  S.  r.'.»7. 

"'Culvcrly  •-.   Williinns,    1    Yob.    Jr.  «  Nenj)  v.    Al.hott,  ('.   V.  C.  3;t:t ;    1 

lil'»;  .U-nkinBoii   v.  IVjivh.  cit.   1.')  Vus.  Coop.  C.  C.  temp.  Cott  3S2 ;  Mansc-r  v. 

.%21,'l  V.  &  B.  r>2K;  (.  liiwt'H  i:  Hifjijin-  Back,  0  Ha.  44.;. 

Hon,  1  V.  4:  B.  r»24  ;  Nc-ap  v.  Abbott,  C.  *  Mnlins    r.    I'lvrman,    2    Keen,    26; 

P.   C.  333;    1   (.<><'p.  <'.  *"•  temp.  Cott.  Alvanli-y  »'•  Kiniiaird,  2  Mac.  it  G.  7; 

382;*Man8*r  r.  Back.  C  Ha.  447;  Bax-  Wil..-.t.'r   t-.  Cecil,    :>(>    Bcav.    04.     8tie 

fudalc   f.  JHnlc.  I'J  Bcav.  f.i>l  ;  Swais  Fairlicad  r.  SoiUlicc,  ".•  .lur.  N,  S.  764. 

Iftiid  r.  I)car<lcy,  2'J  Bcav.  4.}'i;  M>ix<-y  '  WtM>d   v.  .Scartli,    2    K.   «t    J.    83; 

V.  iJiiTWfKKl,  8  Jur.  N.  S,  «<)3;  I'arkcr  t>.  Wcb.il<T  i/   C<  ( il    '■'.<>  lUiiv.  f.4. 
Ta.ivvl'11,  2  D.  i  J.  569.    Sec  Wycombe 


*  Ely  r.  Porrinr.  1  GrocirH  Cli.  300;  Oroor  r.  Boone.  5  B.  Moii.  554; 
Trigg  r.  Head,  5  Humph.  52U. 


MISTAKE.  413 

If  tlic  tcnn^  <»r  llic  cfiiitiMct  arc  Jiot  ainhi^uoiis,  or  tlicre 
appears  (o  lia\i'  Uccii  ni»  rcasniialdc  ground  lor  fhc  mistake,  it 
is  not  sufficient,  in  order  to  resibt  specific  perfunnance,  fur  the 
purchaser  to  swear  that  he  lias  made  a  mistake,  or  did  not 
understand  wliat  lie  was  about.* 

It  the  mistake  cannot  be  established  witliont  evidence, 
equity  will  allow  a  defendant  to  a  bill  for  specific  performance 
to  support  a  defence  founded  on  this  ^rround  by  evidence 
dehors  the  agreement.' 

If  the  mistake  be  of  one  party  alone  to  a  contract,  and  it 
be  known  to  the  other  at  the  time  of  makinL,^  the  contract,  the 
fact  that  the  latter  knew  of  the  mistake  may  have  an  im- 
portant bearing  on  the  validity  of  the  contract,* 

If  the  one  party  has,  by  misrepresentation,  caused  the  mis- 
take for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  contract,  his  conduct  may 
amount  to  fraud.' 

If  he  knew  of  the  mistake  of  the  other,  but  is  not  respon- 
sible for  causing  it,  and  in  making  the  agreement  merely  re- 
mains silent,  the  cjuestion  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  mistake 
and  the  general  circumstances  of  the  case. 

If  the  mistake  is  in  the  expression  of  the  agreement,  one  of 
the  parties  cannot  in  equity  hold  the  other  bound  to  an  ex- 
pression of  intention  which  he  knew  to  be  not  in  accordance 
with  his  real  intention.*  f    Where,  for  instance,  a  man  supposes 

•Swaislnnd   v.   Dearsley,    29    Beav.  ' '?«;5ri7,  pp.  13.  15-2G.      See  Wors- 

430.     Sec  Nock  «.  Newman,  1  L.J.  Ch.  ley  v.  Frank,  11  L.  T.  892;  Shearman 

N.  S.  175;   Leuty  v.  Ilillas,  2  D.  A  J.  r.'ilacgregor,  11  Ha.  106. 
1 10.  «  Garrard  v.  Frankel,  30  Beav.  445 

*  Manser  v.  Back,  6  Ila  448 ;  Wood 
».  Scarth,  2  K  &.  J.  [V.i. 


*  Catbcart  r.  Robinson,  5  Pet.  264 ;  Read  v.  Cramer,  1  Green's  Ch.  277; 
Botsfonl  V.  McLean,  45  Barb.  478. 

t  Greer  r.  Caldwell,  14  Geo.  207  ;  Leitensdorfer  r.  Delpliy,  l-i  Mo.  100: 
Wyche  r.  Green,  16  Geo.  49 ;  Harding  v.  Randall,  IT)  Me.  :?:!2. 

A  court  of  equity  will  rescind  a  wiitten  contract,  whether  executed  or 
executory,  wiibin  or  without  the  statute  of  frauds,  a  conveyance  of  realty 


Ill  MISTAKE 

that  he  has  ciitercil  into  n  ruiitract  \'nv  a  lease  at  one  rent,  and 
it  turns  out  that  tlie  rent  Ppecilinl  in  the  agreement  is  of  a 
(litVorent  amount,  the  contract  will  be  6et  aside,  unless  the 
party  against  whom  nlict"  is  sought,  shall  agree  to  aecejtt  the 
rent  which  he  knew  it  was  the  intention  of  the  plaintilV  to 
give.*  So  also  where  in  a  conveyance  of  messuages  the  jdan 
on  the  deed  comprised  a  piece  of  lainl  not  intended  by  the 
vendor  to  be  included,  a  decree  was  made  to  vary  the  deed,  an 
option  being  given  to  tlic  purchaser  to  have  his  contract  an- 
nulled.' 

If  the  mistake  is  not  in  the  expression  of  the  agreement, 
but  in  some  fact  materially  inducing  it,  the  mere  knowledge 
in  the  one  party  (»f  a  mistake  in  the  other  ]>arty,  does  not  in 
the  absence  of  a  duty  to  disclose,  or  other  special  circum- 
stances, constitute  a  sufficient  ground  in  ecpiity  for  avoiding 
the  agreement.'  If  parties  are  at  arm's  length,  either  of  them 
may  remain  silent,  ami  a\;iil  himself  of  his  superior  knowledge 
as  to  facts  and  circumstances  equally  open  to  the  observation 

'  Jb.    See  al80^Vor8k■y  v.  Frank,  11  *  Harris  i-.  roi>i>eii.ll,  L.  li.  5  Kq.  1. 

L.  T.  a92.  *  i^'ipra,  p.  67,  58. 


or  of  pcreonulty,  to  let  in  an  equity  arisin-j  from  facts  piTfcctly  distinct 
fn)m  the  construction  of  tlic  instrument  itself;  ami  whattver doulits  may 
ut  one  time  have  existed  to  the  contrary,  it  is  now  estalili>li<'d  that  relief 
may  Ik;  had  ajjainst  a  mistake  in  a  Avritten  instrument ;  that  such  mistake 
may  he  fhown  by  parol  proof  and  relief  granted  to  the  injured  party 
whether  he  sets  up  the  mistake  affinnatively  by  a  bill,  or  as  a  defmcc  or 
to  rebut  an  ecjuity.     Wyche  r.  (Jreeii,  11  Geo.  ITiO. 

A  <ourt  of  eijuity  will  not  interfere  where  the  instniment  is  siuh  im  the 
parlies  themselves  desi^nied  it  to  be,  for  if  they  voluntarily  ehoose  to  ex- 
prcsH  thenwlvcs  in  the  lan;,'uaf;c  of  the  instrunu  nt,  they  are  bound  by  it. 
McEMerrj-  r.  Sliijjley,  2  Md.  Srj ;  Leavitt  r.  Palmer,  a  N.  Y.  lit;  Stoddard 
T.  Hart,  2'^  N.  Y.  O.'iO ;  Ganu-r  r.  Dird,  r>l  IJarb.  277. 

The  choice  must  In-  hihIi  a  voluntary  cln)ice  as  the  law  considers  a 
HufTicientlv  fr''<'  exercise  of  the  will  to  constitute  an  airreenu-nt,  a  valid 
instrument  in  the  absence  of  fraud.  :ind  not  a  choice  madi'  under  undue  or 
fraudulent  influcnee.     Wilson  i.  Watts,  9  ,Md.  ;J"»(J. 


MISTAKE.  415 

of  bdtli,  or  (.'(jiKiUy  within  fliu  reach  of  thuir  ordinary  dili- 
i^oiiee,  and  i.s  under  no  ol)lii,Mti()n  to  (h'aw  the  attention  of  the 
other  to  eircuinstances  affecting  tliu  ju-uperty,  tlic  buhject-nial- 
ter  of  the  contract,  although  lie  may  know  him  to  be  under  u 
mistake  -svith  respect  to  thcm.^  The  case,  however,  is  other- 
wise if  there  he  a  duty  to  disch)se.  A  party  who  i>  under  a 
duty  to  disclose,  and  who,  ihero  is  reason  to  believe,  knoWB 
more  about  the  subject-matter  of  the  agreement  than  the  (jther 
party,  will  not  be  permitted  by  a  court  of  c(piity  to  hold  the 
hitter  to  the  agreement.''  TleHef  may  indeed  be  at  times  had 
in  e(|uity,  even  though  no  lidiiciary  relation  a])pears  to  subsist 
between  the  parties,  when,  under  the  special  circumstances  of 
the  case,  it  appears  inequitable  that  the  one  party  should  hold 
the  other  to  his  engagement.'  Eelief,  accordingly,  was  given, 
where  an  instrument  had  been  delivered  up  under  the  ignor- 
ance of  one  party,  and  with  tlio  knowledge  of  the  other  as  to  a 
fact,  upon  which  the  rights  attached.* 

Money  paid  voluntarily,  under  mistake  of  foct,  is  recover- 
able both  at  law  and  in  equity,  uidess  it  be  clear  that  the  party 
making  the  payment  intended  to  waive  all  inquiry  into  the 
facts.  It  is  not  enough  that  he  may  have  had  the  means  of 
learning  the  truth  if  he  had  chosen  to  make  inquiry.  The 
only  limitation  is  that  he  must  not  waive  all  inquiry.^  * 

By  the  general  rule  of  the  common  law,  if  there  be  a  cou- 

'  Supra,  p.  64.  *  3. 

H'oikinfrt'.  Pratt,  IVes.  400;  Millar  'Kelly    v.    Solari,    9   M.   A-  W.  64  ; 

V.   CrniiT,    6    Bear.   433;    Meadows   v.  Tinviiscnd   v.  C" rowdy,  8  C   B.   N.   S. 

Meadows,  16  Beav.  404;  Cox  V.  Bruton,  477.     Sec  Greirorv  v.  I'ilkin':jton,  8  D. 

5  W.  R.  544.  M.  A  G.  616;  Shaiid  v.  Grant,  15  C.  B. 

'  East    India  Co.   v.   Donald,  9  Yes.  N.  S.  324. 
275. 


*  Scott  r.  TVamcr,  2  Lans.  49 ;  Boon  v.  Miller,  16  Mo.  4.'37;  Ash  brook  v. 
Watkin?,  3  Men.  82. 

Tlic  jiayment  of  a  check  retained  l)eyond  the  time  li.xed  by  the  rules  of 
the  clearing-house  by  mistake,  is  payment  under  a  mistake  of  fact,  ilcr- 
cbants'  National  Bank  c.  National  Eagle  Bank,  101  Mass.  2^1. 


4  Hi  MisrAUi:. 

trai't  whii-h  has  l>i-in  ivihu-i'<l  into  writin:;,  vcrhal  ividciico  is 
not  all«)wc(l  to  hfijivin  (.f  wliat  passed  lictweeii  the  partic?, 
oitlicr  l>i'f'«>ri'  t!u'  uritti-ii  iii-tniiiK'iit  was  made,  or  diirin;,'  tho 
time  it  was  in  a  state  of  i)rci)aratioii,  so  as  to  add  or  subtract 
from,  or  in  anv  manner  to  vary  or  quality,  the  written  con- 
tnict.'  A  rourt  of  equity,  however,  admits  sueii  evidence, 
whether  the  purpose  of  tlic  suit  he  to  rectify  or  rescind  an 
airreenu'nt.'**  ihit  tlic  court  will  nut  act  u|>i>n  such  evidence, 
unless  the  proof  he  clear  and  conclusive.  In  all  cases  where 
euch  evidence  is  pven,  creat  attenticm  will  he  paid  to  what  is 
fctated  by  the  other  party  to  the  instrument.^ 

The  mistake  may  be  conimdii  to  both  ])arties  to  a  trans- 
ection, and  may  consist  either  in  the  expre^^ion  of  their  aLjree- 
ment,  or  in  some  matter  inducing,'  or  intluencini,'  tho  agree- 
ment, or  in  some  matter  to  which  the  agreement  is  to  be  ap- 
plied.* f 

'  G088  V.  Lord  N'u','cnt,  r,   B.  «t  Ad.  '  Bi-ntley   v.    Mackny,   31   L.   J.    Ch. 

68.  700,  ;>( /■;•<!.  j>.  4U1. 

'  BfDtlcy    V.  Mackny,    :<!   L.   .1.  Ch.  •  Leake  on  CoiitnicLs,  p.  172. 

709;  Gnrriird  v.  I'ruiikel,  30  Beav.  UA. 


*  Gillespie  r.  Moon,  2  Jolin.H.  Ch.  C83;  Wa.'<!il)urn  r.  Merrills,  1  Day, 
139;  Graves  v.  Mattingly,  6  Bush.  'M\. 

t  Allen  r.  Hammond,  11  Pet.  G32  ;  8.  c.  2  Sinnner,  ;'.87;  Tliom|»8on  r. 
Jarkson,  3  Hand.  Mi  ;  Can-  r.  Callai^han,  3  Litt.  305;  Glassell  c.  Thomas, 
8  Lei^h,  113  ;  Cliamherlaine  r.  Marsh,  «  Munf.  2S:{. 

Notliin;;  is  more  clear  in  e<|uity  than  the  doelriiie  that  a  eontraet 
foundetl  in  a  mutual  mistake  of  the  facts  constitutini;  the  very  Lasis  or 
i-sscnce  of  it  will  avoid  it.  Daniel  r.  Mitchell,  1  iStory,  173;  .Marvin  r. 
Bennett,  8  PaiRC,  312  ;  Lcfjer  r.  Bonaffe,  2  Barb.  475;  Irick  r.  Fulton. 
8  Grat.   193;   Miles  v.  Stevens,  3  Barr,  21. 

AVlure  the  mistake  is  of  kg  fiuidamental  n  character  that  the  minds  of 
the  parlies  have  never,  in  fact,  met,  or  when-  an  unconscioiiahlc  a<lvanta<;c 
has  l)ccn  gained  l»y  mere  mistake  or  misapprehensions,  and  there  has 
l)cen  no  gross  negligence  in  fallintj  into  error,  relief  may  !»e  granted. 
Brown  i.  Lam|)hear,  3.'i  Vt.  252;  Allen  r.  Hammond,  11  iN-t.  (13;  Williams 
T.  Shatr<ir<l.  H  Pick.  250;  Ctmnor  r.  HendiTson,  15  Ma'S.  31  !t;  Winston  r. 
Gwathmey,  H  15.  .Mon.  23;  (ircciie  r.  Batcman,  2  Woodh.  iV  M.  359. 

A  mutual  mistake  in  reguril  to  the  title  of  the  vendor  is  ground  for 


MISTAKE.  417 

Tlic  rule  at  law  is  (liat  an  a^MX-eriifiif  cannot  he  \aric<l  In' 
external  evidence,  and  that  the  parties  are  Iioiind  hy  tlie  docu- 
ment, which  they  have  si<i^ned  and  accepted  as  their  af^ree- 
nient,*  unless  there  he  error  on  the  lace  of  it  K(;  ol)vi(Mis  as  to 
leave  no  douht  ot"  the  intention  of  the  ])aities,  without  the  rk- 
sistancc  of  external  evidence.  If  there  he  mi.  take  or  error  on 
the  face  of  an  insti  iiuient,  a  court  of  law  can  correct  it.'^  *  \ 

The  strict  i-ule  at  law  is,  however,  largely  tempered  by 
the  doctrine  and  practice  of  courts  of  equity,  for  a  court  of 
eipiity  will  not  specifically  enforce  a  contract  which  has  been 
drawn  up  by  mistake,  in  terms  not  in  conformity  with  tlie  real 
agreement  of  the  parties,  and  will,  in  many  cases,  reform  or  set 
aside  the  mistaken  agreement. 

The  defence  that  the  contract  sought  to  be  enforced  is  not 
in  conformity  with  tlic  real  agreement  between  the  parties,  but 
has  been  draMii  up  incorrectly  by  n:;stake,  may  be  set  up  by 
parol  evidence  in  answer  to  a  bill  for  specific  performance.*  f 
If  the  defendant  can  show  that  the  instrument  does  noi  re])re- 
Bent  the  real  agreement  between  the  parties,  the  plaintifi'  can- 
not have  specific  performance,  uidess  he  consent  to  the  vari- 


'  Ilitrliin  ?>.  r:;-oom,  5  C.  r?.  515.  'Joyncs   v.    Statliam,    3   Atk.    ."^SS  ; 

^  Wiisiii  V.  \>  ilsoti,  5   II.  L   t)() ;  per  Garrard   r.  (Iriiiliii;;.  2  Sxv.  '211;   Lord 

Lord  St.  Leonards;  Leake  on  Contractd,  fiordon  i'.  Marijuis  of  llL-rtrord,  2  Madu. 

173.  luo. 


relic£  Smith  r.  Robertson,  23  Ala.  312;  Ilyne  r.  Campbell,  G  Mon.  280; 
Boulin  v.  Pollock,  7  Mon.  20. 

If  a  jiuls^ment  is  confessed  under  a  clear  mistake,  a  court  of  law  will 
set  it  aside  if  application  be  made,  and  the  mistake  shown  while  the  judg- 
ment is  in  its  power.  An  agreement  to  confess  judgment  is  not  stronger 
than  the  confession  itself.  If  the  judgment  is  no  longer  in  the  power  of 
the  court,  relief  may  be  obtained  in  chancery.  The.se  j^rinciples  arc  of 
universal  justice,  and  universal  application.     The  Iliram,  1  Wheat.  440. 

*  Barr  v.  Broadway  Ins.  Co.  10  N.  Y.  209  ;  Cries  r.  Withers,  20  Md. 
653. 

t  Cathcart  v.  Robinson,  5  Pet.  2G4 ;  Bradbury  r.  White,  4  GrecnL  391 ; 
Voorhecfl  r.  De  Meyer,  2  Barb.  ;]7. 


•11^  MlSTAKi:. 

sitioii  as  Pi't  n])  liv  the  tlclrndaiit.  If  the  jilnintil]' will  not  ao- 
tvpt  specific'  ]>ertoniiaiice  with  tlie  variatiini  as  set  up  and 
])rovcd  by  tin-  delendaiit,  his  hill  will  he  dismissed  ;'  and  sj»e- 
eilic  j)erlVirMianee  of  the  agreciiitiit,  with  the  variatittu  j)rovcd, 
may  be  decreed  at  the  instance  of  the  delendant  without  a 
cross  bill.'  Athouf^h  a  defendant  may  show  by  parol  that  the 
written  instrument  does  not  represent  the  contract  between 
the  parties,  a  plaint ilf  cannot  have  a  decree  for  specific  per- 
Ibnnance  of  a  written  contract  with  a  \ariatiiin  ujm.h  parol 
evidence,  for  the  Statute  of  Frauds  is  a  bar  to  the  relict?* 
Parol  evidence  is  admissible  on  the  part  of  tlie  ])arty  resisting 
gpccitie  |x?rformance,  not  to  vary  tlie  terms  of  the  agreement, 
but  to  show  that  it  is  unconscientious  in  the  i)laintiti'  to  seek 
gpecilic  perfonnance,  without  submittini^  to  the  variation  set 
up  and  proved  by  the  other.* 

If  parties  enter  into  an  agreement,  but  there  is  an  error 
in  the  reduction  of  the  agreement  into  writing,  so  that 
the  written  instrument  fails  through  some  mistake  of  the 
draftsman,  either  in   matter  of  law^f  or  of  fact,  to  represent 

Moynes   v.    SUitham,    3    Atk.    388;  Squire  f.  Cnmpboll.  1  M.  »t  C.  459.  480, 

Clarke  r.  Grnnt.    14  Vi-s.   519;   Rams-  /«r  Lord  CoUonlmm ;   Att.-(Jen.  »•.  Sit- 

l.dUoni    ».    (J'lPtkn,    1    V.   it   B.    1G5;  will,  1   Y.  A  C.  ft.Mt ;    Dnvios  r.  Kitton, 

Lontion  and  liinninsliain  Unilway  Co.  2  br.  <k  War.  T2:> ;   .Manser  i>.  Hack,  6 

r.    Winter,    Cr.    <k    I'll.  57;  .Martin  v.  Ha.  4  13.  417;   Wilson  <\  Wilson,  5  II. 

I'vcroft, '.i  D.   .M.  it   (J.  7S.');   I'allou  v,  L.  ti.').  ;"»•  Lord  >t.    l.fonnrds. 
Hol/nis.  IC  Ir.  Ch.  4'JS.  «  Clowus   «■.   Hi^'ijinson,    1    V.    «k    B. 

'  Fifi-  V.  Clayton.  13  Vcs.  640.  024. 

»  Wooliani    r.    IKarn.    7   Yes.    211 ;  '  Wake  v.  llarrop,  1  II.  <k  C.  202. 

Clinan  v.  Cooke,  1    Sch.  A  Lef.  22,  3tf ; 


*  A  court  of  equity  may,  in  the  same  suit,  at  the  instance  of  the  plaintiff, 
rectify  au  instrument,  ami  decree  specific  ]«  rfnrmanee.  (Jillespie  r.  Moon, 
2  JohniJ.  Ch.  585  ,  Kers-illtraek  r.  Livin-^slon,  1  Johns.  Cii.  144;  Moale  c, 
Buchanan,  11  C«.  &  J.  ^14 ;  Moshy  v.  Wall,  2;J  .Miss.  81  ;  IJallanre  p.  Undcr- 
hili,  :5  Seam,  l'*:!;  llusnn  r.  Pitman,  2  llayw.  .'):J1 ;  \Villi.H  r.  Henderson,  4 
Seam.  1:5;  Smith  i.  Allen,  Saxlon  A'.\;  Bellow.s  r.  Stone,  14  N.  II.  IT."); 
r///./n/,  Oslnmie  r.  I'helps,  lli  CM.  (VJ ;  Klder  r.  Elder,  U)  Me.  SO;  Tli-'Uiase. 
McCormick,  »  Dana,  IDS. 

t  Beardsley  r.  Knif^ht,  10  Vt.  185 ;  (foodell  r.  Fiehl.  15  Yt.  44H ;  Wash- 
hurn  r.  Merrill,   1  Day,   l^'J;  Ale.xander  c.  Newton,  2  Grat.  200;  rarham 


MISTAKE.  11!) 

tlic  ital  nt,'reciMO?it  of  tlic  ]i;irflcs,  or  oinit-^  or  contains  terms 
or  si  i  I 'Illations  coiitrarv  to  the  coiniiion  intention  of  the  jiurtics, 
a  court  of  equity  will  correct  and  reform  the  instriniiejit,  ho  as 
to  make  it  confornuible  to  tlio  real  intent  of  the  parties.** 
So  also  if  a  conveyance,  executed  for  the  ])nrj)o.sc  of  fjiving 
eflect  to  ami  executing-  an  ai^avement,  sh(.nld  by  mistake  give 
tlic  purchaser  less  than  the  ai^^rceinent  entillcil  him  to,  lu;  may 
call  on  the  court  to  rcctity  the  defective  conveyance,  and  give 
liim  all  that  the  agreement  comprehended.^ f     The  ])rincii)le 

'  Beaumont  v.  Branilcj-,  T.  A  li.  41  ;  wood,  :!2  I5cav.  430  ;  33  L.  J.  Cli.  1U(J; 

Cockfrcll    ?'.  riiolmclcy,    Tanil.    4:!5;  DriiilV  c.  I'liHci-r,  L.  R.  T)  Ivi.  137. 

Asliluirst  V.  Mill,  7  lla.'r.O'i  ;   Barrow  v.  ''  Monro  v.  Tayl.r,  3  Mac.  <t  G.  718; 

Barrow,  18  Beav.  r)2'.»;  Murray  v.  Tar-  Louty  r.  Hilia-i, 'li  1).  ct  J.   12h;  4  Jur.' 

kcr,  iDBeav.  3U8;  Reade  t;.  Armstron;^,  N.  S."  11G7.     Seo  Cox  v.  Bruton,  5  W. 

7  Ir.  Ch.   375;  Malna'shury  v.  Malmes-  R.  544. 
bury,  81  Beav.  4U7 ;  Scholfield  v.  Lock- 


V.  Parliam,  C  Humph  287;  Rogers  v.  Atkinson,  1  Kelly,  12;  Collier  v. 
Lanier,  1  Kelly,  238 ;  Larkins  r.  Biddle,  21  Ala.  2.->2  ;  Stedwell  v.  Anaerscn, 
21  Ct.  139. 

"■"  Baynard  r.  Norris>,  5  Gil],4G8;  Wooden  r.  Ilaviland,  18  Ct.  101; 
Savage  r.  BeiTy,  2  Scam.  515  ;  Hunt  v.  Freeman,  1  Oliio,  22G ;  Finlcy  r. 
Lynn,  C  Crancb.  238  ;  Scott  v.  Duncan,  1  Dcv.  Eq.  403  ;  Aldridge  v.  Weenis, 

2  G.  «&  J.  3G ;  Manz  v.  Bcekman  Iron  Co.,  9  Paige,  188 ;  Newcomer  v. 
Kline,  11  G.  «&  J.  457;  Peterson  v.  Grovcr,  20  Me.  3G3 ;  Chamberlain  v. 
Thomp.<on,  10  Ct.  243 ;  Keyton  v.  Branford,  5  Leigh,  39 ;  Dcsell  r.  Casey, 

3  Dessau.  84;  Bass  t.  Gilliland,  5  Ala.  7G1  ;  Leonard  r.  Austin,  2  How. 
(Miss.)  888;  Gelton  v.  Hawkins,  2  J.  J.  Marsh.  1 ;  McMillin  r.  McMJIlin,  7 
Mon.  5G0. 

t  Tilton  V.  Tilton,  9  N.  H.  385 ;  Riemer  v.  Cantillon,  4  Johns.  Ch.  85  ; 
Blessing  r.  Bcatty,  1  Rob.  287;  Gardner  r.  Gardner,  1  Dessau.  137;  Blod- 
gett  r.  Ilobart,  18  Vt.  414;  McKay  t.  Simp.son,  G  Ired.  Eq.  452;  Blair  r. 
McDonnell,  1  Halst.  Ch.  327. 

A  mistake  may  bo  corrected  between  the  original  parties,  or  tho.-ie 
claiming  under  them  in  priority,  as  heirs,  devisees,  legatees,  assignees, 
voluntary  grantees,  or  judgment  creditors,  or  purchasers  from  them  with 
notice.  Simmons  r.  North,  3  Smed.  &  3Iar.  G7;  Wall  v.  Arrin^^ton.  13  Geo. 
88;  Strang  r.  Beach.  11  Ohio  St.  R.  283. 

A  bill  will  not  lie  to  correct  a  mistake,  unless,  on  application,  those 
having  power  to  rectify  it  refuse  to  do  so.  Lamkin  v.  Reese,  7  Ala.  170  : 
Beck  V.  Simmons,  7  Ala.  71. 

The  omission  of  a  statutory  requirement  may  be  supplied.  Beardsley 
e.  Knight,  10  Vt.  185  ;  Watson  v.  Wells,  5  Ct.  4G8. 


IJl)  MISTAKE. 

uj>oii  which  the  court  acts  in  ctUTCctin;;  instruiiu-nts,  is,  thut 
tlie  parties  arc  to  ho  ]»hicc(l  in  the  same  situation  as  they  would 
have  Stood  in  it"  thi-  i-rror  to  he  correcteil  ]\:u\  lu.t  heen  coin- 
niltt.Ml.  When  a  (h-cd  as  (h'.iwn  up  i,'ocs  hcyoud  the  instruc- 
tions and  the  intention  of  the  parties,  it  will  be  rectified.*  * 
'  Wnlkcr  v.  Armstrong  8  1).  M.  «kCi.  544. 


"VThon  tlioro  is  an  omission  of  s<nno  stntutory  requirement  in  the  deed 
of  a/tiiir  conrt,  tin-  mistake  can  not  1)3  correctcl.  Dickinson  c.  Glcnney. 
'J7  Ct.  104  ;  GrapinjiitiitT  r.  Fejcrvary,  9  Iowa,  103. 

If  an  instrument  is  iireparcd  acconlinLT  to  tlie  intentions  of  the  parties, 
but  read  incorrectly,  it  will  be  valid.  Wliite  r.  Williams,  2  Grrcn'.s  Cli. 
370. 

A  penal  bond  left  in  blank  may  be  filled  up.  Gray  r.  Humpli.  2  IlilTs 
Ch.  0. 

The  omission  of  a  seal  may  be  supplied.  iMontville  r.  Ilaughton,  7  Ct. 
542  ;  Huthind  r.  Pai<;e,  24  Vt.  181. 

The  omission  of  words  of  inheritance  may  lie  corrected.  Rutledge  r. 
Smith,  1  Busl.ee'3  Eq.  283  ;  Wright  r.  Delatield,  23  Barb.  498  ;  Colchester 
r.  Culver,  29  Vt.  Ill;  Springs  v.  IIar\'en,  3  Jones' Eq.  90;  Cromwell  r. 
Winchester,  2  Head.  3S9. 

The  word  "  dollars  "  may  be  inserted  in  a  sealed  note.  Newcomer  r. 
Kline,  11  G.  &  J.  457. 

An  instrument  may  be  corrected  against  sureties,  as  will  as  against 
others.  Butler  r.  Durham,  3  Ired.  Eq.  589;  Iluson  r.  I'itman,  2  Hey.  331 ; 
Newcomer  i.  Kline,  11  G.  «fc  J.  457. 

A  deed  may  be  corrected  so  as  to  bind  the  firm,  instead  of  one  part- 
ner.    McNaughton  r.  Partri.lge,  11  Ohio,  223. 

A  mistake  in  an  application  for  an  insurance  policy  may  be  correcte<l, 
even  aft<r  a  loss  has  occurred.  Harris  o.  Columbiana  County  Ins.  Co.,  18 
Ohio.  110. 

A  mistake  in  an  insurance  policy  may  be  rectified.  Fireman's  Ins.  Co. 
r.  Pow.ll,  13  B.  Mon.  311 ;  National  Fire  Ins.  Co.  r.  Crane,  10  ,'M  1.  200. 

A  f^n  ijhli-  purchaser  may  liavc  a  deed  corrected  as  to  thr  description, 
so  as  to  discharge  the  land  from  a  judgment  lien  that  attached  after  the 
execution  of  the  «lefective  conveyance.  (Jouverncur  r.  Titus.  1  Idlw.  ('h. 
477;  SimmoDBr.  North,  3  Smed.  &  Mar.  07;  White  r.  Wilson,  0  Blackf. 
448;  Barr  r.  Hatch,  3  Ohio.  527. 

An  omission  with  kn»>wle«lg«",  and  reliance  on  a  parol  promise  that  tho 
omitted  portion  hhall  be  carried  out,  is  not  a  mistake  or  ground  for  relief. 
Ligon  r.  Rogers,  12  Geo.  2Hl. 

A  court  of  equity  will  not  correct  a  mistake  in  a  voluntary  conveyance. 
Mintnm  r.  Seymour,  4  Johns.  Ch.  497. 

*  Tilton  r.  Tilton,  0  N.  \l.  385 ;  Lc  Roy  v.  Piatt,  4  Paige,  77 ;  Watson 


MISTAKK.  421 

lii'lii'f  ujion  ii  dc'lcctivc  iiisti-iiiiit'iit  is  tin;  iiiorc  i-c;i<lilv  allurilcwl 
mIk'ii  tlie  party  t()  he  cliui-i^ed  tlici-con  is  liimsi'lf  the  jicrsijii 
M'hu  j)ropared  or  pcrt'ected  it.'  Thu  fact,  liuwcver,  that  tho 
defective  instruiuent  may  liave  been  drawn  up  by  the  i)arty 
seeking  relief  is  immaterial,  if  a  proper  case  be  nmde 
out.' 

A  person,  however,  who  seeks  to  rectify  an  instrument,  on 
the  ground  of  mistake,  must  be  able  to  prove  not  only  that 
there  has  been  a  mistake,  but  must  be  able  to  sliow  exactly 
and  precisely  the  form  to  which  the  deed  ouglit  to  be  brought, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  set  right  according  to  what  was  really 
intended,  and  must  bo  able  to  establish,  in  the  clearest  and 
most  satisfiictory  manner,  that  the  alleged  intention  of  tho 
parties  to  which  he  desires  to  make  it  conformable,  continued 
concurrently  in  the  minds  of  all  parties  down  to  the  time  of 
its  execution.  The  evidence  must  be  such  as  to  leave  no  fair 
and  reasonable  doubt  upon  the  mind  that  the  deed  does  not 
embody  tho  final  intention  of  the  parties.^*  If,  upon  a  per- 
sonal agreement  for  a  life  assurance,  a  policy  be  drawn  by  tho 

'  Er-pnrte  Wrijjht,  10  Yes.  257 ;  Col-  Rooke  v.  Lord  Kensinglxjn,  2  K.  <t:  J. 

lett  ?'.  Morrison.  9  lln.  170.  764  ;  Fowler  v.  Fowleri  4  D.  <t  J.  205  ; 

»  Ball  V.  Storic,  1  Sim.  <fe  St.  218.  Earl  of  Bradford  v.  Earl  of  Romney,  30 

'Lord  Towiishend  v.  Stani^room,  6  Beav.  481;  Bentlcy  ?>.  Mackay,  31  L.  J. 

Yes.  334;  BL-aiimont  v.  Branilcv,  T.  &  Ch.  7n9 ;  Sells  v.  Sells,  1  Dr."<feSm.42. 

R.  41,  50;  Mar(|uis  of  Brtailiilljane  v.  See  Lloj'd  v.  Cocker,  19  Beav.  144. 

Marquis  of  Cliaudos,   2  M.  «fc  C.   740 : 


T.  Cox,  1  Ircd.  Eq.  389  ;  Davis  r.  Phelps,  7  Mon.  G:32 ;  Richardson  v.  Blight, 
8  B.  Mon.  580. 

*  United  States  v.  !Munroo,  o  Mason,  572 ;  Lyman  r.  Little,  25  Yt.  570  ; 
Lyman  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co.,  17  Johns.  373;  s.  c.  2  Johns.  Cb.  630; 
Triplett  r.  Bailey,  8  Humph.  230  ;  Farly  v.  Bryant.  32  Me.  474  ;  Reese  r. 
Wyman,  9  Geo.  430  ;  Mosby  r.  Wall,  23  Miss.  81  ;  Beard  r.  Ilublde,  9  Gill, 
420 ;  Brantley  r.  West,  27  Ala.  542. 

If  the  mind  of  the  court  is  satisfied,  the  requirement  is  complied  with. 
Gillespie  r.  Moon,  2  Johns.  Ch.  585;  Sharman  r.  Miller,  6Md.  479;  Tucker 
T.  Maddin,  44  Me.  20G  ;  Ilillman  t.  Wright,  9  Ind.  126  ;  Davidson  r.  Greer, 
3  Sneed,  384  ;  Ruffner  v.  McConnell,  17  111.  217. 


42*2  MISTAKK. 

msurance  office  in  a  form  which  tlillcrs  from  the  termi  of  tho 
arjreemcnt,  and  varies  the  riijlits  (»f  tlic  partie.^  assured,  equity 
will  interfere  and  deal  with  the  ease  on  the  footing  of  the 
agreement,  and  not  on  that  of  the  ])oli('y.*  If  it  ajtprar  tliat 
there  was  a  eliange  of  intention,  hy  whieli  the  eireumstanco 
tliat  tlie  instrument  does  not  follow  the  terms  of  tlie  original 
contraet  migljt  he  explained,  there  ean  be  no  rectification;'  so, 
also,  if  it  appear  that  the  ])arties  took  different  views  of  what 
was  intended,  there  would  he  no  contraet  between  them  which 
Could  be  carried  into  effect  by  rectifiying  the  instrument.' 
There  can  be  no  rectification,  if  the  mistake  be  not  mutual  or 
common  to  all  parties  to  the  instrument,*  or  if  one  of  the 
parties  knew  of  the  mistake  at  the  time  he  executed  the  deed. 
Rectification  can  only  l)c  had  where  both  parties  have  executed 
an  instrument  under  a  common  mistake,  and  have  done  what 
neither  of  them  intended.'  A  mistake  on  one  side  may  be  a 
ground  for  rescinding,  but  not  for  correcting  or  rectifying  an 
agreement.' 

In  Harris  v.  Pcppcrell,'  Lord  Romilly,  !M.  R.,  said  that  the 
rule  that  the  court  will  not  rectify  an  instrument  on  the 
ground  of  mistake,  except  the  mistake  be  mutual,  is  liable  to 
an  excci)tion  in  a  case  between  vendor  and  purchaser.  But 
the  distinction  is  not  supported  by  the  authorities,  and  does 
not  seem  sound.  Garrard  v.  Franke*  and  Harris  v.  Pej)perell,' 
were,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  correctly  determined  ;  but 
the  ])rincii>le  upon  which  they  are  to  be  upheld  is,  that  the 
court  in  these  cases  merely  abstained  from  setting  the  agree- 
ment aside,  on  the  consent  of  the  defendant  to  submit  to  tho 


•  foll.tt  r.  Mornson.  '.•  Iln.  li'.j.  '  Knton   v.    Hi-nnt'it,   ;;|    IJcav.    190; 

*  .ManiiiM  of  I5r<-mlull>nno  v.  Marquis  Fnllon  v.  Kobins,  \*'>  Ir.  t'li.  4'2'J. 

of  CliniKlo^.  iJ  M.  <k  C.  7KI.  •  MortiiiKT  f.  Sli..rtall.  2  Dr.  it  Wnr. 

•  Bcnlley    v.   Mttckny.  :il    L.  J.   Cli.  37'i;  I'owUt  r.  Fowk-r,  4  D.  A  J.  265. 
709,  '  r,.  IJ.  r.  Iv,.  1. 

*  Rookf  V.  I/ord  K'-nHiri'^lon.  2  K.  it  " :«»  Henv.  t.M. 
.).  7r>.'J;  FowliT  V.  Fowler.  •»  I),  .t  J.  •  L.  U.  0  li'i-  1. 
aCS;  fck-llB  f.  SfllH,  1  Dr.  d;  Siu.  42. 


MISTAKE.  423 

variation  alk'^f<l  by  the  plaiiilill".  Jii  cases  of  rcetifieatioii, 
properly  so  calluil,  the  court  docs  not  put  it  to  tlie  tletuiidaiit 
to  submit  to  tliu  \ariatiou  al!ei;e«l  by  the  pliiintiir,  but  makes 
tbc  instrument  eontbrmablu  to  tho  intent  of  the  ])artic.s  with- 
out any  such  offer  or  submission. 

Altlioui^b,  liowevcr,  the  court  will  not  rectify  a  transaction 
between  two  or  more  parties,  unless  on  tin.'  :i;roun(l  of  mutual 
mistake,  a  deed  poll  by  way  of  appointment  may  be  rectified 
on  the  ii;round  of  mistake,  if  the  mistake  is  clearly  proved  on 
the  part  of  the  person  makinj^  it.^ 

Parol  evidence  is  admissible  on  tlio  ap]ilieation  to  rectify 
an  instrument  to  show  wliat  the  intention  of  the  parties  really 
was.''  In  most,  if  not  in  all,  the  cases  in  which  the  court  has 
reformed  an  instrument,  there  has  been  something  beyond  the 
parol  evidence,  such,  for  instance,  as  a  rough  draft  of  the 
agreement,  written  instructions  for  preparing  it,  or  the  like; 
but  the  court  will  act  where  the  mistake  is  clearly  established 
by  parol  evidence,  even  though  there  is  nothing  in  writing  to 
which  the  parol  evidence  may  attach.'  If,  however,  there  is 
not  anything  in  writing  beyond  the  parol  evidence  to  go  by, 
and  the  defendant,  by  his  answer,  denies  the  case  set  np  by 
the  plaintiff,  the  plaintiff  will  often  be  without  a  remedy, 
though,  even  in  such  cases,  the  parol  evidence  may  be  so 
conclusive  as  to  justify  the  court  in  granting  the  relief 
prayed.^ 

If  the  original  agreement  is  of  doubtful  construction,  and 
the  conveyance  is  definite  and  unequivocal,  it  is  not  easy  to 


'  Wrii^ht  V.  GofF,  22  Be.iv.  214.     Seo  Mortimer  v.  ShorUll.  2  Dr.  <t  War.  ."^73; 

Wilkinson  v.  Nelson,  7  Jur.  X.  S.  48 1.  Lackersteen  !•.  Lackersti-on. »'.  .lur.  N.  S. 

■•Alexander  v.  Crosbie.  LI.  ifc  ( J.  temp.  1111;   Tomlison  v.  Lei'j;h.    1 1  Jur.  X.  .'^. 

Snq;.  14.');  Mortimer  v.  8iiort:ill.  2  Dr.  962. 

ct  War.  ."ti:? ;  Barrow  i'.  Barrow,  IS  Beav.  *  Ih. ;  Beaumont  v.  Bramley.  T.  <t  R. 

532;  Lnckcrstcen  v.  Lackersteen,  6  Jur.  f>2;  Fowler  v.  FowKr,  4  D.  <t  J.  273; 

N.  S.  1111.  Bcutley  v.  Mackay,  3 1  L.  J.  Ch.  7o9. 

*  Alexander  r.  Crosbie,  LI.  <t  G.  149  ; 


•1-^  MISTAKL. 

avoid  the  eonclusiun  tliat   tliu   laltrr  may  be  the  bust  evi.K'iuc 
of  the  ti-riiH  itf  thf  actual  a^'reemrut.' 

AVhoro  a  (locunu'iit  has  been  .^iiriu'd  as  an  agrcemeiit  in  a 
fomnion  mistake  as  to  its  contents,  and  it  ai)i>ears  that  no  real 
nj;ri'en>ent  was  (H>nie  to  between  the  j)arties,  aceordin^j^  to  wliieh 
it  mii^ht  l)e  reetilied,  the  eonrt  will  set  it  aside.*  There  ean  be 
no  reetilication,  if  one  ot"  the  eontnutiiii;  parlies  never  heard  of 
that  whieh  is  said  t(»  be  the  real  ai^reement.^ 

Where  the  instrument  sought  to  be  rectified  on  the  ground 
of  mistake  was  a  marriage  settlement,  the  doctrine  in  the  older 
cases  was,  that  where  the  articles  ami  settlements  were  both 
before  marriage,  the  court  would    not    interfere,  unless    the 
settlement  was  expressed  to  be  made  in  pursuance  of  the  arti- 
cles, for,  without  such  a  recital,  the  court   supjjosed   that  the 
]>arties  had  altered  their  intentions  as  regarded  the  terms  of 
the  contract.*     The  later  authorities,  however,  dispense  with 
the  necessity  of  a  reference  to   previous  articles  in  the  settle- 
ment.'    Where  a  settlement   i)uri)()rts   to  be   in  |)iirsuance  of 
articles  entered  into  before  marriage,  and  there  is  any  variance, 
then  no  evidence  is  necessary  to  have  the  settlement  corrected; 
and  although  the  settlement  contains  no  reference  to  the  arti- 
cles, yet  if  it  can  be  shown   that   the  settlement  was  intended 
to  be  in  conformity  with   the  articles,  an<l   there  is  clear  and 
satisfactory  evidence  showing  that  the  discrepancy  had  arisen 
from  a  mistake,  the  court  will  reform  the  settlement,  and  make 
it  conformable  to  the  real  intention  of  the  parties.^ 

In  Bomc  cases,  where  the  fact  of  the  mistake  can  be  fairly 
imj)lied  from  the  natun;  of  tin;  transaction,  relief  will  be  given. 


'  lliim|iliries  ».  Ilorno,  ;i  Mil.  277.  'Fowler   v.   .Srotti-ili   K<iuitnt)Io  Lifo 

*  Calvi-rli-v  t'.   WilHnms.    I    Vo^.  .Ir.  A-^iurnnco  Si>rlclv,   2M  L.  .1.  Cli.  'J'JS. 

'.ilO;  I'ri.c  i:  Ivy,  -i  (Jiff.  •.;.■(:.;  n\T.  11  «  Hold    i'.    llulchinsuii,  6  D.  M.  A  O. 

W.  11.475;  P'owKt  v.   Scolfmii  K(|uit.  60ft. 

«blc   Life  AKHurnnco  Societj',  US  L.  .1.  *  Ih. 

Ch.  228.     Soo  Cox  v.  Bruloii.  5  W.  U.  •  lb.  668 

644. 


II  1ST. MCE.  425 

althougli  tlio  fact  of  tlic  iiiistakL-  is  not  establisliod  hy  <lircct 
evidence.  Tlnis,  in  cases  where  there  has  been  a  joint  hjan  of 
money  to  two  or  more  obligors,  and  they  are  by  tlie  instrument 
made  jointly  liable,  but  not  jointly  and  severally,  the  court  has 
reformed  the  instrument  and  made  the  obligation  joint  and 
several,  so  as  to  charge  tlie  estate  of  a  deceased  obligor,  upon 
the  reasonable  presumption,  from  the  nature  of  the  transaction, 
that  it  was  so  intended  by  the  ])artics.*  *  The  de]>t  bein^ 
joint,  the  natural,  if  not  the  irresistible,  inference  in  such  cases 
is,  that  it  is  intended  by  all  the  parties  that,  in  every  event,  tlie 
responsibility  should  attacb  to  each  obligor,  and  to  all  equally. 
This  can  be  done  only  by  making  the  bond  several  as  well  as 
joint ;  for  otherwise,  in  case  of  the  death  of  one  of  the  obligors, 
the  survivor  or  survivors  only  would  be  liable  at  law  for  the 
debt.^  Indeed,  it  is  now  well  established,  as  a  general  prin- 
ciple, that  every  contract  for  a  joint  loan  is,  in  equity,  to  be 
deemed,  as  to  the  jxirties  boi-rowing,  a  joint  and  several  con- 
tract, whether  the  transaction  be  of  a  mercantile  nature  or  not ; 
for,  in  every  such  case,  it  may  fairly  be  presumed  to  be  the 
intention  of  the  parties  that  the  creditor  should  have  the 
several,  as  well  as  tlie  joint,  security  of  all  the  borrowers  for 
the  payment  of  the  debt.^  Ilence,  if  one  of  the  borrowers 
shouUl  die,  the  creditor  has  a  right  to  proceed  for  immediate 
relief  out  of  the  assets  of  the  deceased  party,  without  claiming 
any  relief  against  the  surviving  joint  contractors,  and  without 
showing  that  the  latter  are  unable  to  pay  by  reason  of  their 
insolvency.* 


>  v:; 


Simpson  v.  Yaushan,  2  Atk.  31,  32  ;  »  Gray  r.  Cliiswell,  9  Yes.  118  ;  L'x- 

Bisliop   r.   Church.   2  Yes.    100,   371;  7)a>7<>  Kendall,  17  Yes.  525. 
Thonins  v.  Frazer.  3  Yes.  390;   Under-  '  Tliorj.e  v.  Jackson,  2  Y.  it  C.  653. 

hill  r.  llorwood.  10  Yes.  227  ;  Devayncs  *  11,.;  Williamson  v.  Ilendcrson,  1  M. 

r.' .Noble,  Sleecli's  Case,    1  Wer.   5G4  ;  «fe  K.  582. 
Thorpe  i-.  Jackson,  2  Y.  <t  C.  553. 


*  Wcavore.  Shryork.  %  S.  .t  R.  2G'3 ;  Barnes  r.   Camart,   1   Barb.  .".94; 
Eydc  r.  Tanner,  1  Barb.  84. 
28 


r.ut,  whero  tlu*  inlVrence  ot'a  joint  ori;j:innl  (k-Ut  or  lialiility 
is  rc'pclk'd,  a  court  ot'  ctjuit}'  will  not  intertVrc  ;  f»»r  in  such  a 
case  tlicro  is  no  ^^touikI  to  j>rr>unu'  a  mistake.  The  doctrine 
has  been  thus  stated  l»y  Sir  W.  (iraiit,  in  Sumner  r.  Powell:^ 
"Where  the  ohli;;ation  exists  only  in  virtue  of  a  covenant,  its 
extent  can  he  nieasured  only  hy  the  words  in  which  it  is  con- 
ceived. A  }tartner.-hi|)  debt  luis  hcen  treated  in  equity  as  tlie 
several  debt  of  each  ]»artiier,  although  at  law  it  is  only  the 
joint  debt  of  all.  Ihit  then  all  the  partners  liave  had  a  benefit 
from  the  money  or  the  credit  i^iven  ;  and  the  oblii,Mtion  of  all 
to  pay  e.xists  independently  of  any  instrument  by  which  the 
debt  may  have  been  secured.  So,  where  a  joint  bond  has 
in  e<piity  Iteen  considered  as  several,  there  has  been  a  credit 
previously  given  to  the  diH'erent  persons  who  liave  entered 
into  the  obligation.  It  is  not  the  bond  that  first  created  the 
liability." 

It  is  upon  the  same  ground  tliat  a  C(»urt  of  equity  will  not 
reform  a  joint  bond  against  a  mere  surety,  so  as  to  make  it 
several  against  him,  upon  the  presumption  of  a  mk^take  from 
the  nature  of  the  transaction  ;  but  it  will  re(piire  positive 
proof  of  an  express  agreement  by  him  that  it  should  be 
several,  as  well  as  joint.'  So  where  an  obligee  of  a  joint  and 
several  ]»ond  elected  to  take  a  judgment  against  all  the 
obligors,  and  thus  at  law  lost  his  right  of  a  several  remedy, 
a  court  of  e<juity  refused  him  a  remedy  against  the  i)ersonal 
assets  of  a  deceased  obligor,  who  was  oidy  a  surety.'  So  also 
in  cases  where  the  obligation  or  c(»venant  is  i)urcly  matter  of 
arbitrary  convi-ntion,  not  growing  out  of  any  imtecedent 
liability  in  all  <»r  any  of  the  obligors  or  covenantors  to  do 
what  they  have  undertaken  (as,  for  example,  a  bond  or  cove- 
nant of  indemnity  for  the  acts  or  debts  of  third  ])ersons),  a 


I  2  M<r.  3iV  '  rnitpil    SUtc.i    r.    rHcc,    «     How. 

•  Jl/.;  IlnwHtono  .-.  I'nrr,  :t  UiHi.  nno.       (Anicr  )  «« 


MISTAKE.  427 

court  of  crpiitv  will  not  liy  im|ilic;iti(iii  c',\teii<l  tlie  nspon.'-i- 
liility  iVniii  fhiif  (»f  a  joint  l<i  a  jnint  and  several  undertaking.'* 
I!iit  if  tilt  re  lie  an  c.xiiress  agreement  to  the  effect  that  an  ol>- 
ligation  or  other  contract  sliall  be  joint  and  several,  or  to  any 
other  effect,  and  it  is  omitted  l)y  mistake  in  the  instrument,  a 
court  of  equity  -will,  under  such  circumstances,  grant  relief  as 
fully  against  a  surety  or  guarantee,  as  against  the  principal 
party.'^  f 

The  equity  for  rectification  on  presumptive  evidence  is 
applied  also  to  a  mortgage  by  husband  and  wife  of  the  wife's 
estate,  which  has  limited  the  equity  of  redemption  to  the 
husband.  If  the  instrument  does  not  recite  an  intention  to 
do  more  than  make  a  mortgage,  the  presumption  is  that 
nothing  more  was  intended ;  and  the  instrument  will  be 
reformed  by  restoring  the  equity  of  redemption  to  the  wife. 
And,  in  like  manner,  it  is  held  that  if  a  lease  be  made  by  a 
tenant  for  life,  under  a  power  created  by  a  settlement,  and 
a  rent  reserved  to  the  lessor  and  his  heirs,  these  words  shall 
be  interpreted  by  the  prior  title,  and  ap])lied  to  the  re- 
mainderman under  the  settlement,  and  not  the  heir  of  the 
lessor.' 

The  principle  upon  which  the  court  reforms  and  corrects 
an  instrument  on  the  ground  of  mistake,  will  not  apply  in  a 
case  in  which  a  matter  has  been  completely  overlooked  on 
both  sides ;  and  the  agreement  is  a  substantial  agreement, 
which  speaks  in  sufRcientl}-  clear  terms  for  itself,  and  contains 
no  reference  to  any  other  instrument,  or  to  any  pre-existing 

'  Snmner  f."^owell,  2  Mer.  36,  37 ;  2  Mcr.  36 ;  Ravrstone  v.  Parr,  3  Russ. 

Clarke  v.  Bickers,  14  Sim.  630.  530. 

'  Crosby  v.  MiiUlk-ton,  Tree.  Cli.  300;  =  lanes  v.  Jackson,  1  Bligh,  l'>4,  lU  ; 

2  Eq.  Ca.  Ab.   188;  Sumner  v.  Powell,  Clark  r.  liunxh,  2  ColL  221. 


*  Warb  r.  Webber,  1  Wash.  274;  Harri-^on  r.  Mirge,  2  Wash.  l^C. 
t  Berg  r.  Radcliffc,  6  Johns.  Ch.  30C :  Wiser  r.  Blacklcy,  1  .Johns.  Ch. 
607. 


42S  -MISTAKK. 

relation  ;'  or  in  a  case  wlicrc  tlio  iiistrnmcnt  is  in  ncfordanco 
with  the  exi>rt'ssi'tl  intention  of  tlie  parties,  and  lias  been 
j)rejtared  with  Inll  knowleclij;c  of  their  ri<i;hts,  lint  has  failed 
onlv  because  tlie  parties  have  lucii  ill-advised  as  to  the  way  of 
iHvin:^  eflect  to  their  intention.'*  Nor  will  the  e(»nrt  make  a 
settlement  conformable  witli  what  it  is  allei^ed  it  wonld  liave 
been  if  all  the  material  points  had  been  present  to  the  minds 
of  the  parties  at  the  time  they  executed  it,'  Nor  will  the 
court,  under  the  name  of  rectification,  add  to  tlic  airreement  a 
term  which  had  not  been  dctenuined  upcui,  or  was  not  ajijitatcd 
between  them.  There  can  be  no  rectification  if  the  agreement 
executed  is  in  accordance  with  the  j»ruposals.*  Xor  can  there 
be  rectification,  if  it  was  by  the  intention  of  the  parties  that 
the  written  instrument  did  not  comprise  all  the  tenns  of  the 
actual  jigreement.' 

Thou<j^h  the  court  will  rectifN'  an  instrument  which  fails 
through  some  mistake  of  the  draughtsman  in  jioint  of  law  to 
carry  out  the  real  agreement  between  the  ])arties,'  it  is  not 
eniKcitMit,  in  order  to  create  an  ecpiity  for  rectification,  that 
there  has  been  a  mistake  as  to  the  legal  construction,  or  the 
legal  consequences  of  an  instrument.  The  ])roper  question 
always  is,  not  what  the  document  was  intended  to  mean,  or 
liow  it  was  intended  to  operate,  but  what  it  was  intended  to 
be.  For  example,  where  an  aiinnity  had  been  sold  by  the 
plaintiff,  and  was  intended  to  be  redeemable,  but  it  was 
agreed  that  a  clause  of  re<lemi)tioii   should    not   be   insertc(l  in 


'  Tarkorr.  Toflwell,  2  I).  A  J.  659.  »  Lord  Inilmm  v.  Cliild.   1  liro.  C.  C. 

*  I'arr  V.  SUcrUTa,  1  Ha.  M.'J.  1*2;   Lonl  rortiiiorc  »•.  Morris  2  Itro.  C. 
'Harrow  v.  Harrow,  IM   I{cav.    Mi;  ('.  21'.t;  Lonl  Towiishi'iiil  r.  St«iii;riH)in, 

Wilkinson  »•.  Xt'l«ton.  7  .lur.   N.  S.  IHI.  C,  Vcn.  :{.'{2 ;    Ilurl.iil:,'c  r.  Woj,'im,  :>  Hu. 

Se.'  Hillu  f.    Uowlaml,  4    1).  .M.    A    G.  25K. 

4S0.  '  Waki'  I*,  llarrop,  1  II.  ik  C.  202. 

•  EIwcs  I'.  Elwcft,  3  1>.  F.  6:  J.  607. 


Hunt  r.  Rouflinanicr.  1  I'ct.  I ;  Durant  r.  Bacot,  2  ncasloj,  201. 


MISTAKE.  429 

tlu!  (Irrd,  because  l»i»tli  juiitit's  ciToiicoiisly  snpposod  lliat  its 
insertion  wmild  make  llie  transaction  usurious,  it  was  lield 
tliat  the  omission  couM  not  bo  supplied  in  equity,  for  the 
court  was  not  asked  to  niakc  tlie  deed  what  the  parties  in- 
tended, but  to  make  it  tliat  whicli  they  did  not  intend,  Ijut 
wliicli  tlu'V  M'onld  lia\e  intended  it'  they  liad  been  better 
inlbrnied.^  So  also  where  a  Jiarty  niakiiiij:;  a  voluntary  deed 
supposes  that  he  will  have  a  power  of  subsequent  revoc^itioii, 
though  no  such  power  is  reserved,  the  deed  cannot  ai'ter- 
wards  be  rectified  by  inserting  '  the  power,  the  evidence 
merely  showing  that  the  power  had  been  omitte<l  under  the 
erroneous  belief  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  insert  it,  not  that 
the  power  was  intended  to  be  inserted,  but  was  left  out  by 
nustake.^ 

Nor  can  there  be  rectification,  although  both  parties  may 
have  been  nnder  a  mistake,  if  the  mistake  be  in  respect  of  a 
matter  materially  inducing  the  agreement.^ 

The  court  will  not  rectify  a  voluntary  deed,  unless  all  the 
parties  consent.  If  any  object,  the  deed  must  take  its  chance 
as  it  stands,*  Kor  can  a  voluntary  deed  be  reformed,  except 
with  the  consent  of  the  settler,  if  it  fails  to  carry  out  the 
intention  of  the  parties.  A  voluntary  deed  may,  however,  be 
set  aside  after  the  death  of  both  donor  and  donee,  if  there  is 
evidence  to  show  that  the  donee  complained  of  the  deed  and 
took  steps  to  annul  it.^ 

The  court  will  not  reform  a  deed  or  instrument  upon 
petition  or  motion,  but  only  upon  a  regular  bill  for  that  pur- 
pose; and  until  a  deed  or  instrument  is  reformed,  the  court  is 
bound  to  act  uj)Ou  it  as  it  exists.* 

If  parties  enter  into  an  agreement  conditionally,  and  in 


'  Irnhnm  r.  Child,    1  Bro.  C.  C.    02  ;  *  Brnw-n  r.  Konneily.  03  Benv.  IS-"^. 

Townslu'iul  V.  ^tanprooni.  6  Vi-s.  o'iS.  *  I'liilipson   v.   Kerry,  32  B'RV.  628. 

'  Worrall  v.  Jacob,  3  Mcr.  '270.  See  Cox  »•.  Krulon,  J  W.  K.  54-L 
'  Carptuacl  r.  Powis,  10  Bcav.  86.  *  He  Mulct,  30  Bcav.  4o7. 


430  MisTAKi:. 

contcin}>lrttion  of  or  witli  ii't'crenco  to  a  supposed  actual  state 
of  things,  and  it  turns  nut  that,  by  the  niutu.d  mistako  of  tlio 
}>artics,  tin,"  sujijtosctl  actual  state  of  things  docs  not  in  fact 
subsist,  the  consideration  for  the  a:^rcement  fails,  and  the 
agreement  is  consequently  void  as  ^vell  at  law  as  in  e(piity.' 
A  contract,  for  instance,  for  the  sale  of  a  cargo,  supposed  by 
both  parties  to  be  on  bnard  a  particuhir  ship,  is  at  eml  if  the 
cargo  Lad  at  the  time  ceased  to  exist.'^  So  also  a  contract  for 
the  sale  of  an  annuity,  during  the  life  of  a  person,  is  condi- 
tional upon  his  being  alive  at  the  time  of  the  sale  ;  so  that  he 
having  previously  died,  and  i>airchasc-money  having  been 
paid  in  ignorance  of  the  fact,  the  sale  is  void,  and  the  ]>nv- 
t'haser  is  entitled  to  recover  back  his  money.'  So,  also,  wliere 
a  policy  of  insurance  was  renewed  during  the  days  of  grace 
allowed  after  the  expiration  of  the  policy  and  acceptance  of 
the  premiums,  both  ])arties  being  ignorant  that  the  life 
insured  had  previously  died  during  tlie  days  of  grace,  it  was 
held  that,  the  renewal  being  conditional  u])()n  the  insured 
being  then  alive,  it  was  void.*  So  also  where  an  agreement 
was  made  for  the  sale  of  a  remainder  in  fee  expectant  on  an 
estate  tail,  and  a  bond  was  given  to  secure  the  })urchase- 
moncvs ;  but  it  appeared  that  at  the  time  of  tlic  sale  the  tenant 
in  tail  had  suffered  a  recovery  and  destroyed  the  renudnder, 
of  which  both  parties  were  ignorant,  the  agreement  was  held 
void,  and  the  bond  was  cancelled,  ui)on  the  ground  that  the 
parties  had  contracted  upon  the  BUi)j)osition  that  a  recovery 
liad  not  tlun  been  .'-uirered.'  So  al.>o  where  an  agreement 
was  made  between  the  assignee  of  tlie  tenant  for  life  of  an 
estate  and    the  person    entitled   in    reiuaindt-r,  respecting  the 

'  See  Stipylton    »'.    Scott,    13    Vcs.  '  Sfrirkliitul  r.  Turner.  7  Exch.  20S. 

427;   llobiiiwjii   v.  I)i(k(!nHon,  .'{  Uinx.  '  I'ritcliunl    r.    M'lcliaiitV    Life     Iii- 

4i:{;   CooiKT   r.  riiibU,  L.  R.  '2   A|.i>.  eiir  n  •<•  N,,ci.-ty,  :i  < '.  It.  N.  S.  (122. 
(ja    119.  '  llilcliciit  k  v.  Uiddiiijjrt,  1  I'ri.  135. 

M'oiitiiruT  I'    Hiisfic,  '.»  Kxch.  li)2,  5 
U.  L.  6T.i. 


Ml  ST  A  ICE.  4.^1 

timber  on  tlio  estate,  uiiik-r  tin-  ,<u])])Ositioii  that  llio  tenant  for 
life!  was  then  ali\('  and  entitled  to  cnt  the;  llnilx.T,  ])ut  he  was 
in  liu't  thi'ii  (h'ad,  it  was  held  that  the  agreement  was  void, 
both  in  eqnity  and  at  law.^  So  also  where  a  fund  was  settled 
on  two  persons  for  life,  witli  l)enelit  of  survivorship  between 
them,  and  one  of  tliein  sold  his  reversionary  interest;  but  it 
turned  out  that  at  the  time  of  tlie  sale  the  other  pei'son  was 
dead,  so  that  the  interest,  wliieh  was  su])posed  to  be  a  rever- 
sionary one,  had  become  an'  interest  in  possession,  and  the 
fact  was  unknown  to  both  parties,  it  was  held  that  the  sale 
conld  not  stand.^  So  also  where  a  party  haviiif^  a  claim  n]»on 
another  party,  discharged  the  executors  of  the  latter  after  his 
death  from  all  claims,  and  there  was  a  recital  in  the  deed  of 
release,  that  the  party  deceased  had  before  his  death  possessed 
himself  of  a  certain  fund,  which  had  been  set  apart  to  secure 
the  claim,  the  release  was  set  aside  on  it  turninii;  out  tliat  the 
recital  was  false,  and  that  the  fund  had  been  paid  in  by  him 
to  a  bank.'  So  also  where  a  party  had,  uj>on  a  compromise, 
executed  a  general  release  in  resjject  of  partnership  matters,  it 
was  held  that  he  was  entitled  to  relief,  on  the  ground  of  a 
large  item  in  which  he  was  interested  having  been  omitted  by 
mistake  in  the  account.* 

Similar  considerations  apply  where  a  vendor,  through 
innocent  mistake,  makes  a  misi'epresentation  as  to  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  sale.  If  the  subject-matter  of  the  sale  is  so 
different  in  substance  from  what  it  was  represented  to  be  as  to 
amount  to  a  failure  of  consideration,  the  agreement  will  be  set 
aside.** 

So  also  if  the  vendor,  in  fixing  the  price,  has  altogether 
relied  on  information  furnished  to  him  by  the  purchaser,  and 


'  Coclirnne   v.   Willis,   L.    R.  1    Cli.  *  IVitt  v.  Clay.  6  Bon  v.  503. 

App.  .')8.  '■'  Suj,ra,  p.  1."),  24;   Earl  of  Durham 

-  Colycr  I'.  Cliy,  7  Boav.  ISS.  v.  Lugard,  ol  Bcav.  611. 

'  Uore  V.  Becher,  12  Sim.  465. 


432  MISTAKE. 

such  informatu'ii  liiriis  uut  t(.  have  hiiMi  l^evoii  imiiitcntioTially) 
incorroi't,  this  may  entitle  the  vemhir,  even  after  conveyance, 
to  relief  in  e«iuity.' 

r.ut  a  (..iitract  may  lie  unconditional,  althouj^'h  the  parties 
are  under  a  mistake  respectini,'  some  matter  which  induces 
the  contract.  Thus,  if  the  contract  be  absolute,  and  n«>t  with 
reference  to  collateral  circumstanccp,  as,  for  instance,  if  a  shij" 
(»n  a  vovaire  be  snjd,  and  the  ship,  at  the  time  <>f  the  contract, 
be  seriously  damai^ed,  to  the  ii^norant-e  of  both  jKirties,  still 
the  contract  is  valid/ 

So  also  althoui^h  there  be  a  mutual  mistake  rcspcctini:  the 
subject-matter  of  the  af;:rcement,  yet  if  both  parties  are  aware 
that  the  subject-matter  is,  from  its  nature,  doubtful  or  uncer- 
tain, or  is  of  a  speculative  or  contingent  character,  the  mistake 
f;oes  for  nothinjj:  either  at  law  or  in  equity.  A  contract  for 
the  sale  of  a  thiiiir,  the  extent  or  value  of  which  is  understood 
to  be  unknown  to  both  i)arties,  or  which  is,  from  its  nature  or 
character,  doubtful  or  uncertain,  is  valid  and  l)indinij:.^  If  a 
banmin  depends  on  a  contingent  event,  or  the  s\d)ject-matter 
of  a  contract  be  an  uncertain  thing,  and  the  contingency  or 
chance  be  known  to  both  parties,  neither  of  them  can  resist 
specific  performance  because  the  reality  has  tmiied  out  to  be 
different  from  what  he  antiripateil.* 

There  is  mutual  mistake  which  will  vitiate  a  contract,  or 
which  at  least  will  render  it  incapable  of  being  s])ecilically 
enforced  in  cfpiity,  if  the  one  purty  does  n(tt  think  he  is 
Belling  what  the  (.ther  thinks  he  is  buying.'^ 

Care    must,    however,    be   taken    in    distinguishing   cases, 

'  Cnriirnacl  v.  I'owH.  !<•  ]U-nv.  W.  l.M'. ;  Hnxcndnlcs »-.  Scnlc,  I'J  lk>nv.  fiOl. 

*  lUrr  f.  (iibson.  .'I  M.  <k  V>'.  IJ'JO.  See  Monro  v.  Tn\l<>r,  :t  Mm-.  «t  <J.  718. 

*  MorlimiT  v.  CuiiImt.  1  Uro.  I'.  C.  •  llitolicock  r.  (;i.l(iinf;-,  4  I'ri.  i:!:i; 
l.'ir,;  Ili.ltrwBV  »'.  Siii'vd.  Kuv.  fi'27;  Cocliriiiu- f.  WilliM.  L.  K.  1;  Cli.  Ajip. 
llnxl-nduh-  I-.  S'lilf.  l'.»  l5<av.  r.iil.  Sou  58;  linUi-rwurlli  r.  WnlkiT,  i:i  W. 
l»a\i^  t'.  Sli<-|)li»ril.  L.  U.  1  I'h.  .\|.|..  K.  lOS;  liaxiixlalc  v.  Sculo,  l'.»  H<iiv. 
41,,.  CUl. 

*  Morliiuer  v.  (.  apiwr,  1  Bf).  C.  C. 


MISTAKE.  433 

Avhorc  the  ]);irtic'S  arc  uiidci-  ;i  mutual  iiiistako  as  to  tin- 
Bubjcct-niatter  of  a  conti-acl,  rnmi  cases  wliere  tlicru  is  lui 
doubt  4as  to  the  suhjcct-niatter ;  but  the  one  Jia.s,  in  fact,  sold 
more  than  be  thought  he  was  selling,  and  the  other  has  got 
more  than  lie  expected.  In  sucli  cases  relief  cannot  he  had  in 
equity,  if  there  has  been  no  unfairness  on  either  side.^  AVhere, 
for  instance,  that  wliicli  the  \cji<l(ir  intended  to  sell,  and  the 
purchaser  to  l)uy,  Mas  a  leasehold  interest,  erroneously  sup- 
posed to  have  a  shorter  time  to  run  than  it  in  fact  had  to  run, 
it  was  held  that  tbe  vendor  bad,  after  conveyance,  no  equity 
for  relief.^  So  also  where  a  man  entitled  to  an  interest  in  a 
residuary  estate,  assigns  all  bis  interest  to  a  creditor,  be  is  not 
entitled  to  relief  if  it  afterward  appear  tbat  the  residuary 
estate  consisted  partly  of  a  fund,  the  existence  of  which  was 
not  known  to  eitber  of  tbe  parties  at  the  time  of  tbe  execution 
of  tbe  deed,' 

Xor  where  several  persons  bave  joined  in  conve}ang  an 
estate  to  a  purchaser  for  a  full  consideration,  can  one  of  them 
be  afterward  heard  to  say  tbat  be  M'as  under  a  misapprehen- 
sion as  to  the  extent  of  his  interest  in  tlie  })roperty.* 

Tbe  same  considerations  wbicli  aj)[»ly  to  tbe  case  of  agree- 
ments entered  into  under  a  mutual  mistake  of  tbe  parties  as  to 
fact,  apply  to  tbe  case  of  compromises.  A  compromise  whicb 
is  founded  on  a  mutual  mistake  of  tact  cannot  be  supported. 
If,  for  instance,  a  compromise  is  founded  on  the  genuineness 
of  an  instrument  whicb  turns  out  to  be  forged,  or  if  a  suit 
whicb  it  is  tbe  object  of  a  compromise  to  determine,  turns  out 
to  bave  been  already  decided  in  favor  of  one  of  tbe  ]xirties,  or 
if  a  compromise  be  founded  on  a  will,  whicb  turns  out  to  bave 
been  revoked  by  another  will  of  whicb  the  })arties  are  ignorant, 

"  O'Xeill  t'. 'Whittaker,  1  Dcg.  <fc  Sm.       872;  Comp.  Grieveson    v.    Kirsopp,  5 
83,  2  Ph.  338.  Boav.  'J.s?. 

"lb/  *  MaMcn  v.  Menill,  2   Atk.  8.     See 

»  Uowkins  v.  Jackson,  2  Mac.  &  G.       Marsliall    ;•.    Collett,   1    Y.   A-   C.  232; 

Evans  t'.  Junes,  Kay,  29. 


l.'M  MISTAKE. 

the  transaction  camiot  ho  sii]>i)i)rti'(l.'  lint  tlio  case  isdid'crent 
if  the  tact  in  resj)ect  of  whicli  tlioro  is  u  mistake!  ho  iiic'liulcd 
in  the  ciiniproinisi',  and  h(>  not  llu*  very  foinuhitioii  on  whicli 
tlic  conii>ronii.sc  rests.'  If  one  or  more  parties  liavin^,  or  sup- 
posiiiii^  tliey  liave,  chiims  upon  a  j;iven  suhject-matter,  or  claims 
ii]>on  each  other,  a^reo  to  compromise  those  claims,  and  to 
come  to  a  general  settlement  of  the  matters  in  disjiute  hetween 
them  without  resortinif  to  litiijation,  and  thev  act  with  fjood 
faith,  and  stand  on  an  equal  footing,  and  have  equal  means  of 
knowledge  as  to  the  facts,  the  compromise  is  hinding  in 
eipiity.^  It  is  not  enough  to  invalidate  the  transaction  that 
one  of  the  parties  may  have  been  in  error  as  to  a  fact  included 
in  it.  A  compromise  cannot,  however,  be  supported,  unless  it 
is  fairly  entered  into,  and  after  due  deliberation.* 

The  principles  which  ap])ly  to  the  case  of  ordinary  com- 
promises between  strangers,  do  not  equally  apply  to  the  case 
of  compromises  in  the  nature  of  family  arrangements.  Family 
arrangements  are  governed  by  a  special  equity  peculiar  to  them- 
selves, and  will  be  enforced,  if  honestly  made,  although  they 
have  not  been  meant  as  a  compromise,  but  have  i>rucceded 
from  an  error  of  all  parties,  originating  in  mistake  or  ignorance 
of  fact  as  to  what  their  rights  actually  are,  or  of  the  j)oints  on 
which  their  rights  actually  depend.' 

Where  an  agreement  is  capable  of  being  applied  to  dilVerent 


•Toiill.  Cod.  n.l.  Liv.   :<.  tit.  :!,  c.  '2.  Lnvnllc'c.  Ifi  Moo.  V.  C.  270;   Stninton 

Sof!  Aslmrot  v.  Mill.  7  lln.  riO'J;  Lawlon  v.  Ciirroii  Co.,  IK)  L.   J.  (."h.  71H,  aujua, 

V.  <'ntniiion.    \H    Ucnv.   K7;   'I'rifjijo   i'.  p.  7'.',  ;!•"!•). 
Ljivull4<-.  ir.  .Moo.  1*.  C.  27t'>.  *  Scott  v.  Scott.  11  Ir.  Em.  7.'>. 

'See  Trijj','t>   V.   L«viillt-»',  15  Moo.  I'.  *  StorUK-y  v.  Stock!)  y,  1  V.  A  K  'JU; 

C.  '27t'..  I)unnii;,'c  r.'WIiitc.  1  >*w.  l:{7;   (;>>rilc.ii 

»  Attwood   V.  ,   1    ItuHH.   :{r.3;    5  r.  (Joriloii,  .T  Sw   -Uto;  Nciilo  r.  Niiil.',  1 

Hum.  H'.I;   Uoclio  r.  O'Hri.n,   1  J!n.  .t  Keen,  (172;   Wcsthy   v.    Wothy.   2  Dr. 

]{«•.  :{:J0;    Lconiinl  r.  l.iMinanl.  2   lia.   .t  .t  War.  fti>2;  St. •wart  v.  Slt-wiirt,  rt  ("1. 

IU-.  171  ;  .Naylorr.  Winch.  1  Sim.  ,V  St.  .t  Fin.  Itll;  I'crs-..-  r.   r.'rH.-f,  7  ("I.  A 

fi.'i.'i;  I'ickcrin;;  f.  rickfrin^;,  2  I'.cuv.  :i1.  Fin.  27'.i;   n"ii;.'litc>n  i'.    Lccfi,  1  Jur.  .N. 

fjt'i;   I'rilt  p.    Clay,  «  lU-av.  :.<•;{;   .s|,.w.  S.  H('.2;    Williunis  «•.  Williiiius,  2  Or.  «l5 

art  V.  >t<-wart.  fi  Vl.  A  Fin.  IM  1 ;   I'aviH  Sni.  378. 
».  Chaiitvr,    3    W.    U.    321  ;  Tri|:j;^e  v. 


MISTAKE.  435 

thinp^s,  or  in  difterent  ways,  unci  is  accepted  by  cadi  party  with 
a  diflbroiit  appli('ati(»n,  there  is  no  iral  agreement  between 
tlieni,  and  consecjuently  no  contract.^  Jl"  tlio  one  party  in- 
tends to  sell  upon  one  set  of  terms,  and  the  other  party  intends 
to  buy  npon  a  dlfl'erent  set  of  terms,  and  the  contention  of 
either  party  is,  nndcr  the  circiiinstances  of  the  case,  reasonable, 
there  is  in  rcah'ty  no  contract  between  them,  or,  at  least,  not 
such  a  conti-act  as  a  court  of  equity  will  specifically  entbrce.^ 

It  is  not  competent  to  a  party  to  an  a<|^reement  to  assert  an 
application  of  the  agreement  inconsistent  with  the  terms 
agre(.'(l  upon  as  expressing  the  conininii  intention  ;  but  he  is  at 
liberty  to  show  that  it  was  understood  by  him  to  apply  in  a 
manner  consistent  with  its  terms,  but  different  from  the  ap- 
plication accepted  by  the  other  party.^  In  such  case,  the 
agreement  is  said  to  contain  a  latent  ambiguity,  or  one  which 
appears  only  in  the  course  of  applyiiit;-  it/  A  latent  ambiguity 
is  where  it  is  shown  that  words  equally  apply  to  two  difiercnt 
things  or  subject  matters,  and  then  ev^idence  is  admissible  to 
show  which  of  them  was  the  thing  or  subject-matter  in- 
tended.' 

What  is  called  a  patent  ambiguity,  that  is,  a  doubt  or  un- 
certainty appearing  in  the  terms  of  the  agreement  as  expressed 
by  the  parties  themselves,  cannot  be  altered  or  explained  by 
extrinsic  evidence ;  and  if  it  is  inca])able  of  a  rational  inter- 
pretation, the  agreement,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  ambi- 
guity, is  necessarily  void.^ 

The  application  for  relief  on  the  ground  of  mistake  must 


'  Loalce   on  Contracts,  p.  178.     See  '  Loake  on  Contracts,  p.  178. 

Fiilck  .■.  (Jooch,  4  F.  A   F.  589,  591;  *  lb. 

Wist  V.  l)i'  Wczele,  ih.  596.  599.  »  Smith  v.  .Tcffryus.  15  M.  ct  W.  .•561. 

"  lli^^inson  r.  Clowes,  15  Yea.  Mft;  5t)J,  j,ir  Aldcrt-on,  H.    See    Ualllea  v. 

Clowes  I',  lliiiuiiison,   1    V.   .t  IJ.   521;  Wiclielliaus, '2  II.  ct  C.  9U6. 

Neap  ('.  Abbott,   1   C.    P.    CA)p.  temp.  »  See  Coles  v.  llulme,  8  B.  «t  C.  568: 

Cott.  38'J,  383;  Baxeudalc  v.  Scale,  19  AlJcr  v.  Boyle,  4  C.  B.  635. 
Beav.  601. 


l»o  iu:ulo  with  (liie  <lili«;iMUT.*     In  cases  of  mistake,  as  in  cases 
of  frantl,  time  rnns  from  tlio  discovery.'^ 

The  jurisdiction  t.>  relievo  a-Miiist  mistake  beintr  an  enuit- 
able  one,  it  is  exercised  upon  eijuitable  i>rinei[>les.  Transac- 
tions, altliouijfh  impeachable  on  the  ijround  of  mistake,  aro 
nevertheless  subject  to  all  real  and  just  equities  between  the 
parties.  The  court  will  not  set  aside  a  transaction  without 
restorini;  the  ]>arty  airainst  wlium  it  interferes,  as  far  as  ])ossi- 
ble,  to  that  which  shall  be  a  just  situation  with  reference  to  the 
riijlits  which  he  had  antecedently  to  the  transaction,'  If  the 
court  sees  that  it  can  restore  the  ])arties  to  their  former  condi- 
tion, or  place  thcra  in  the  same  situation  in  which  they  would 
have  sto(td  but  for  the  mistake,  without  interfering  with  any 
new  right  acquired  by  others,  on  the  faith  of  the  altered  con- 
dition of  the  legal  rights,  the  jurisdiction  will  be  exercised.* 
A  court  of  equity  will  not,  however,  relieve  against  a  mistake, 
unless  it  is  fully  satisfied  that  it  can  make  ample  compensation." 
If  the  court  sees  that  the  parties  cannot  be  restored  to  that 
which  shall  be  a  just  situation  Avith  reference  to  the  rights 
which  they  had  antecedently  to  the  transaction,  or  that  the 
mistake  cannot  be  corrected  without  bi-eaking  in  upon,  or 
aficcting  the  rights  of  innocent  parties,  wlio  were  not  aware  of 
the  existence  of  the  mistake,  when  their  i-ights  accrued,  relief 
cannot  be  given.'  As  against  hand  Jidc  ])urchasei's  for  value 
without  notice,  no  relief  can  be  had  in  equity.*     Ihit  if  lands 

'  ricauinont  »•.  ISmtiili-y,  T.  «t  11.  -lit;  Dncro  v.  (Jorgcs,  2  Sim.  A  St.  4.'>1 ;  nt- 

DenvB  r.  Slnukl)Ur;,'li,  4    Y.   <t    (J.   .i;f ;  jirn,  p.  'i'.l.'». 

Stoiiu  V.  (;..(lfn-y,   5   1>.   M.  ct  C.  7<l ;  '  Mnltliii  v.  Mcnill.  2  A»k.  8;  Clifton 

lientU-y  r.  Macliay,  .'11    Hfuv.  li;i;  ;;l  r.  ('cicklMirii,  .'5  M.  it  K.   7i'> ;   Hliickii- t'. 

L.  J.  <  li.  7<*"'*;  nii/ini,  |>.  '-11.  (lurk,  ].'>  Honv.  .')".•.'> ;  Jir  Sa.voii  Lifo  lii- 

*  Hrojjksbniik   v.   Smilli,   li  Y.  ik  Co.  purnnrc  Co., '2  J.  «t  II. -IKS;   KutiMiinn  i<. 
60;  nujint,  j».  247.  lloynton,  L.  U.  1  Cli.  App.  II.')".! ;  nii/tra, 

*  >M//r.i,  p.  27t''.  V.  24ii.     Ciiinp.    nrou>;litoii   »>.   llutt,   '.i 

*  .M'Alpim-  V.  Swift.  1  l?a.  A-  Bo.  20.1;  I>.  A  J.  BOl.     Si-c.  nlso,  Doinut,  Liv.  1, 
I)ftrrc  ».  (;«r;,'<s,  2  Sim.  <t  St.  4.M.  Sec  tit.  !«.  s.  1.  nrl.  i:i-17. 

Millar  v.  Crni-.  f,  iJi-nv.  4.'!:!;   M-ulows  •  .MaMm    r.  M.-nill,  2   Alk.   H;   War- 

f.  Mfn<l<»w«,    1«»  iJcnv.   4i)4  ;  Scliollii-ld  rick  r.  Wurrick,  a  Alk.  2u;i;  supra,]}. 

r.  Tempi* T,  John,  h'l.'i.  24y. 

*  Mucalpiiiv  V.  Swift,  1  Ba.  A  Ik.  2U3; 


MiSTAKi:.  437 

shown  to  a  jMii-chascr  :ire  ii('('r])fcil  in  llic  conveyance  under  a 
name  by  wliicli  lie  did  not  kimu-  thviii,  lie  niay,  hy  fretting  in 
an  outstanding  Ici^^al  estate,  hold  them,  even  as  ai^ainst  :i  Hub- 
sequent  purchaser  tor  \alual)le  consideration,  and  without 
notice.^ 

If  tlic  subject-matter  of  the  transaction  1)C  real  estate, 
and  tliere  has  been  a  conveyance,  a  reconveyance  v.ill  be 
ordered,  if  a  case  be  made  out  for  the  interference  of  the 
court.'  * 

On  setting  aside  a  transaction  on  the  ground  of  mistake, 
the  court  may,  with  tlie  view  of  putting  the  parties  in  the 
position  in  Avhich  they  have  an  equity  to  stand,  annex  condi- 
tions to  the  decree.  In  a  case,  for  example,  where,  by  a  mis- 
take in  drawing  up  an  instrument,  the  rent  named  as  payable 
upon  the  lease  of  premises  Avas  considerably  less  than  the 
amount  actually  agreed  upon  between  the  parties,  and  the  mis- 
take was  known  to  one  of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  the  execu- 
tion of  the  instrument,  but  not  to  the  other,  the  court  gave 
the  lessee  an  election  to  continue  in  the  tenanc}',  on  consenting 
to  pay  the  amount  of  rent,  which  ought  to  have  been  inserted 
in  the  instrument,  or  to  abandon  the  lease,  and  pay  for  use 
and  occupation  during  the  period  he  had  been  in  possession  ot 
the  premises  at  the  higher  rate,  being  compensated  for  all 
repairs  of  a  permanent  character,  but  not  for  the  expense  of 
taking  possession  of  the  premises  and  establishing  himself  in 

'  Oxwick  vi  Brockett,  1  Eq.  Ca.  Ab.  v.  Malmesbury,  31  Beav.  418,  supra,  p. 

355.  277,  '278.     See  as  to  terms  of  reconvey- 

'  Cox  V.  Brutoii,  5  W.  R.  r>44  ;  Leuty  ance,  supra,  pp.  278-282 
V.  Uillaa,  2  D.  <fc  J.   120;  Malmesbury 


*  A  court  of  equity  alone  can  reform  a  written  in>truniont.  ITowever  a 
mistake  may  have  been  iiuluced,  it  can  tind  no  recognition  until  tiie  con- 
tract has  been  reformed  and  made  to  confonn  to  the  real  intention  of 
the  parties.  Boyer  r.  Wilson,  32  Md.  122 ;  Holmes  r.  Barker,  3  Johns. 
506. 


138  MlSTAKi:. 

business.  It  was  also  lic-ld  that  the  lessor  was  responsible  to 
refund  the  moneys  advanced  to  the  lessee  upon  the  security  of 
the  lease,  with  costs;  the  lessee  beini,'  liable  over  to  the 
lessor  for  repayment  of  the  same,  on  the  1,'round  that,  if  the 
lease  were  rejected,  the  i)remiscs  must  stand  as  a  security 
for  the  money  so  advanced ;  and  if  the  lease  was  accepted,  it 
was  primarily  liable  for  the  repayments  of  the  same  to  the 
lessor.^ 

Courts  of  equity  have  jurisdiction  on  the  ground  of  mis- 
take to  relieve  against  the  defective  execution  of  a  i>ower.  If 
the  formalities  required  by  a  power  are  not  strictly  complied 
with,  an  appointment  under  the  power  is  invalid  at  law, 
and  the  property  which  is  the  subject  of  the  power  will  go  as 
in  default  of  appointment.  In  equity,  however,  if  an  inten- 
tion to  execute  the  power  be  sufficiently  declared,  but,  by 
reason  of  some  informality,  the  act  declarini,'  the  intention 
is  not  an  execution  of  the  power,  the  court  will,  in  favor 
of  certain  parties,  aid  the  defective  execution,  by  compelling 
the  person  seised  of  the  le^^'al  estate  to  do  that  which  was 
intended  to  be  done.'^  The  supplying  the  surrender  of  a 
copyhold,  and  the  supplying  the  execution  of  a  ])Ower  which 
is  defective  in  form,  go  hand  in  hand.  Wherever  there  is 
a  decision  that  the  court  will  supi)ly  a  surrender,  it  follows 
that  the  court  will  also  supply  the  defective  execution  of   a 


,  8 


power 

The  j)owers  to  whicli   the   (Mjuity  extend   are  those  which 

liave  been  created  by  way  of  use,  :is  distinct  from  bare  author- 
ities conferred  bylaw.  Acts  done  under  authorities  of  this 
latter  kind — as,  for  examj>le,  leases  or  conveyances  by  a  tenant 
in  tail — are  only  binding  when  regular  an<l   complete.     The 


»  fJnrrnr.l  r.  Frnnk.l,  30  Ilonv.  M.-l.  *  Snyir  t-.    Saycr,    7   Ha.    Wj ;    prr 

'  Chnpmnn   v.   (iiliHon,   U   Hro.  «'.('.  Wijrrnin,  V.(\ ;   (.'linjiman  r.  (Jibbon,  3 

229;   Slinnnon  r.  BradntrcMtt,    1   Sell,  it  iJro.  C.  C.  VIM. 

Lcf.  0:j;  baycr  t;.  Saycr,  7  Ha.  ;J77. 


MISTAKE.  439 

principle  of  tlic  (listiiictioii  .'ippciirK  to  Ijc,  that  iinwcrs  limited 
l»y  use  are  mere  reservatiuii.s  <»ut  (jf  the  ori<^inal  owner.shijj, 
constituting  the  donee  a  qucml  owner,  and  the  remainderniun 
a  (jnasl  heir;  and,  consequently,  that  in  confbnnity  with  thiti 
hypothesis,  the  donee's  contracts  for  value  ought  to  bind  the 
remainderman,  and  his  meritorious  intention,  if  unaltered, 
ought  to  have  the  same  cflect.^  The  soundness  of  this  equity 
has  been  questioned  by  Sir  AV'illiani  Grant,  and  its  principle 
seems  difficult  to  sustain.  For  the  power  given,  though 
doubtless,  in  some  sense,  a  modified  ownership,  does  not 
confer  an  absolute  right  to  dispose  of  the  property,  but  a  right 
to  do  so  in  a  specific  way  ;  and  the  chance  that  the  power  may 
never  be  executed,  or  that  it  may  not  be  executed  in  the 
manner  prescribed,  is  an  advantage  given  to  the  remainder- 
man. If,  therefore,  his  interest  is  to  be  regarded,  it  is  diflicult 
to  see  why  he  should  be  bound  by  any  other  than  the  prescribed 
act,  for  he  is  a  stranger  to  any  equity  between  the  donee  of  the 
power  and  the  party  in  whose  favor  it  is  intended  to  be  exe- 
cuted. If,  on  the  other  hand,  his  interest  is  subordinate  to  the 
intention  of  the  donee  of  the  power,  the  intention  of  such 
donee  ought  to  be  sustained,  whatever  be  the  consideration  on 
which  it  rests.'^ 

"Whatever  opinion  may,  however,  be  entertained  as  to  the 
original  soundness  of  the  equity,  there  is  no  question  that  it 
is  established  by  precedent ;  but  it  is  confined  to  cases  of 
execution  formally  defective,  or  of  contract  amounting  to  such 
defective  execution.^*  If  there  be  no  such  execution  or  con- 
tract, the  court  cannot  interpose;  for  unless  where  the  power 

'  Adams'  Doct.  Eq.  99.  '  Adams'  Doct.  Eq.  100. 

MIolmes  V.   Co^cliiH,  7  Ves.  506 ;  12 
Ves.  2UG ;  Adams'^^Doct.  Eq.  99. 


•Howard  v.  Carpenter,    11  Md.    2.')0;    Lines  r.   Danlen,    5  Fla.  .'51; 
Mitchell  r.  Denson,  29  Ala.  327;  Lipinncott  r.  Stokes,  2  IlaLst.  CU.  122. 


.JU)  MlSTAKi;. 


is  in  tlu'  ii;it\nv  uf  a  tni>t.  tin-  <1..iut  lias  his  clu.ice  wht'lher  to 
fXCC'Utc  it  IT  not;  and  if  lu-  dm-s  net  rxccutr,  ..r  attt-inpt  to 
execute,  there  is  no  eciuity  to  execute  it  for  him,  or  to  do  that 
for  him  which  lie  did  not  think  lit  to  d«.  himself.'  Nor  can 
an  execution  he  aided  in  etpiity,  if  the  defect  he  not  fornml, 
but  in  the  substance  (tf  the  junver,  for  such  aid  would  defeat 
the  intention  of  the  donor.  If,  for  example,  a  tenant  lor  life 
has  jtowi'r  to  lease  uith  tlu-  (•oll^eIlt  of  trustees  or  others,  an 
a'n-ecment  by  the    tenant    for   life   alone  to  lease  will   not   be 

aided.' 

The  oulv  ]H'rs(»n?  in  whose  favor  c(|uity  will  interi)ose  to 
supidy  the  defect  in  the  execution  of  a  power  are,  a  hand  fde 
])urchaser  for  valuable  consideration,^  a  creditor,*  a  charity,'  a 
wife,  or  a  Icf^itimatc  child."  To  no  other  persons,  except  a 
wife  and  Iciritiniatc  child,  will  the  aid  of  the  court  be  granted 
u]x->n  the  "ground  of  a  meritorious  consideration.'^  The  equity 
does  not  extend  to  the  case  of  a  defective  execution  by  a  wife 
in  favor  of  her  husband;^  nor  to  a  defective  execution  in 
favor  of  a  natural  child,  a  father,  niotlier,  brother,  sister, 
nephew,  or  cousin  :  a  fortiori  it  does  not  extend  to  a  volun- 
teer.* 

The  character  of  i>urchaser,  creditor,  wife,  or  child,  nnist 
be  home  by  the  ]>arty  claiming  relief  in  relation  to  the 
donee    of   the    jx.wer    and    not    to    the    person     creating   the 


])ower." 


In  AVilkinson   r.  Nelson,'-  a  dccl  of  appointment   in  favor 
of  some  of  the  objects  of  a  power,  was   rectified   by  the  inser- 

.Mi'dwin  V.  Sun<Hinm,  :i  Sw.  r.sr. ;  I'rohy 
V.  Liimlor,  2H  Hmv.  50 » ;  Wliilo.t  Tud. 


•Tolk-t  r.  Toilet.  '1\\  Wii.H.  is'.t. 
»  Ijiwreniwin  v.  Uutlrr,  1  Scli.  it  l-cf. 
1:1 


1..  ('.vol.  I,  !>.  'J  11. 


•  IIu;:Ik«  r.  \VelU,9  Ha.  IW;  Alllirk  '  .Mooilie  r.  lUi«l.  1  Mnd.i.  M6 


II,. 


I..  Atll.ck,:!  Sin.  A  1;.  :j'j4;  ^u-  l'«>w.  

Jiaa  :.:H-   WhiU- A  Tud.  L.  C  vol.  i,  j..  •  Sup.    I'ow.    r..t...    nml    cn»o»  cited; 

.^„„*         ■  WliiifA  Tu.1.  L.  «'.  vol.  I,  212. 

•  Snff  Tow.  r.:53,  ft.'M.  '°  SiiiT.  I'ow.  :.:i7. 

•  Intu-x  r.  Say<r.  7  Ha.  377.  "  7  .lur.  >'.  S.  Ibl. 

•  llcrvey   r.    Ht-rvcy,    1    Alk.   Utl ; 


MISTAKi:.  441 

tion  of  a  liutolijiot  claiisi',  lliu  court  licin<x  patisfied  tliaf  Ok;  iii- 
tciitidii  if  the  (loiit'o  of  the  jjower  was  to  produce  e(jualify,  and 
that  the  ( lause  liad  been  omitted  hy  inifitake. 

It  is  not  PuirK'ieiit  ill  order  to  constitute  a  case  cutifliti;.'  a 
])arly  to  i-clicf  in  ('(jiiitv  on  the  LiTdund  of  thr  dcfccfive  execu- 
tion of  a  i)o\vi'r  that  tliere  i-liouhl  he  a  mere  intention  on  the 
part  of  tlie  donee  to  execute  the  power,  witliout  some  Htcps 
taken  to  give  it  a  legal  eflect.  Some  steps  must  he  taken  or 
Bomc  acts  must  be  done  with  this  sole  and  definite  intention, 
and  such  steps  or  acts  must  be  properly  referable  to  an  inten- 
tion to  execute  the  powcr.^  A  mere  parol  ])romise  or  agree- 
ment to  execute  the  power  is  not  sufficient.^*  l>ut  if  an  in- 
tention to  execute  the  power  appears  clearly  l)y  ?ome  pa])er  or 
instrument  in  writing,  equity  will  aid  a  defect  which  arises 
from  the  instrument  itself  being  informal  or  inappropriate;' 
as,  for  instance,  where  the  donee  of  a  power  covenants,*  or 
merely  enters  into  an  agreement,  not  under  seal,  to  execute 
the  power,''  or  when  by  his  will  he  desires  the  remainderman 
to  create  the  estate  authorized  by  the  i)ower,"  or  if  he  }»r<.miscs 
bv  letter  to  grant  an  estate  whicli  lie  could  only  do  by  the  exer- 
cise of  his  power.'  In  all  these  and  the  like  cases  equity  will 
supply  the  defect.  So  also  a  recital  by  the  donee  of  a  power, 
in  the  marriage  settlement  of  one  of  his  daughters,  who  was 
one  of  the  objects  of  the  power,  that  she  was  entitled  to  a 
share  of  a  sum  to  which  she  could  only  he  entitled  by  his  ajv 
pointment,  has  been  held  sufficient  evidence  of  his  intention  to 
execute  the  poMX-r,  so  as  to  be  aided  in  equity,^  and  even  an 

'  Su;r.  Tow.  r).')0.  nni.  •Vernon   v.   Vernon,  Amb.   3;  Sug. 

*  Carttr  v.  I'artcr,  ^lose.  STfl;  Shan-       Pow.  o5(t. 

non  r.  I'.radstrcet,  1  Sch.  &  Lef.  72.  '  Campbell  v.  Leach,  Amb.  740;  Sug. 

'  Saver  i-.  Saver,  7  Ha.  377.  Pow.  r,:>^K 

*  Sii<;.  Pow.  riuO.  "  AVilson  i-.  Pii:i"tt,  2  Ves.  Jr.  S51. 
"  Shannon   v.   IJrad.strcet,    1  Sch.  <fe       See  PouUon  t-.  Welling,  2  P.  Wnis.  633. 

Lef.  r.2;  Dowell    v.  Dew,  1  Y.  &  C.  C. 
C.  345     Sug.  I'ow.  550. 


♦  MitcbcU  V.  Denson,  Q9  Ala.  327;  Barr  r.  Hatch,  3  Ohio,  527. 
29 


•J  I'J  MlSTAKi:. 

aiiswiT  t'»  ii  liill  iit  clciiu-i-ry  htatiiii,'  that  tl:o  party  cloi's  ajijxtiiit 
and  intciul  I'V  a  writiuj;  in  dno  torni  to  appoint,  will  be  an 
execution  ot'  llic  jmuiT  fur  tins  piirpfisi'.*  So  also  it"  the 
power  ouirht  to  he  executed  bv  deed,  but  it  is  executed  bv  will, 
the  defective  execution  will  be  suiJiilied.* 

The  like  rule  ])rcvails,  where  there  has  been  u  detective 
execution  of  a  ])ower  by  u  formal  or  aj)])ropriate  instrument: 
as,  for  instance,  if  a  deed  be  re<juircd  by  the  puwcr  to  be  exe- 
cuted in  the  i>resence  of  a  certain  nundx-r  of  witnesses,  and  it 
be  executed  in  the  ju'esence  of  a  smaller  nuinbi'r  of  witnesses: 
or  if  it  is  re<juired  to  be  signed  and  sealed,  and  sealing  is  omit- 
ted.^ In  wills  not  coming  within  the  operation  of  the  AVills 
Act,  1  Vict.  c.  I''!,  a  defect  in  the  execution  of  a  power,  eon- 
si.-ting  in  the  want  ctf  the  iiuiiibci-  of  witnesses  required  by  the 
jiower,  was  supplied  in  e([uity.''  ]>ut  the  power  to  assist  de- 
fective executions  of  appointments  within  the  statute  has 
ceased  as  to  wills  made  on  or  after  the  isth  January,  1838. 
'J'iu'  \alidity  of  an  aitpointinent  by  will,  so  far  as  regards  exe- 
cution and  attestation,  now  wholly  dei>ends  on  the  Statute 
Law.* 

E(|uity  will  in  no  case  aid  a  defective  execution  of  a  power, 
if  the  intention  of  the  ])erson  creating  the  jiower  would  be 
thereby  defcati'd.  Although  a  powi-r  will  be  aideil,  if  it  ha-^ 
been  execute<l  by  a  will,  m  hen  it  ought  striitly  to  have  been 
executed  by  deed,"  the  case  is  otherwise,  if  a  power,  reipiired 
to  lie  exercised  by  will,  has  been  executed  by  di-cd.''  The  in- 
tention of  a  j>ower  to  ai>]»oint  by  will  bi-ing  to  rcM-rvc  to  tlu' 
•lonee  of  the  powi  r  a  cirtain  control  ovi-r  the  estate,  until   ihi' 

'  Cart'T  I',  (nrlcr,  Mhhc.  WtXt.  tin;;  llu'  powi-r,  2J  it  'j;t  Vitt.  c.  85,  & 

*Tollot  r,  TolU-l.  •.:  W  \\\m.  489,  IJ. 

•  Wailc  V.  I*iiu'.-t.   1    Hr<>.  ('.  ('.  3ft3;  «  Wilkir  r.  n..liii.s,  1  Sdi.  it  L<f.  «0 

<'ock<T«'ll  r.  ClK.lmi-lc  V,   1  K.  it  M.  fJI.  n.;    Liicfiia   v.   Lihtiui,    :.    Heiiv.    'J-tW; 

All  n|>|  (iiiiliiKMit    liy   cleoil    in    inw  rcii-  Suir.  I'uw.  r»l7. 

cxcrul*'  I  i>r  fitt<  Ht4'<l  witli  nil  tin-  xc>l<iii-  'Si4/iia,  p   :i7-. 

niticit  reijuirtd  by  llic  in-i  uhk  m  irca-  '  Kcid  v.  .sIhtsjoM,  !•»  Vc«.  878,  380. 


MISTAKE.  443 

inoineiit  ol'  the  (k-ath  dl"  lln'  <lniH'(',  if  tlir  doiu'f  of  Bucli  u 
power  t-liduld  execute  an  ajiix.ititiiunfor  a  conveyance  of  the 
estate  l>v  an  alisoliitc  deed,  if  will  he  iiivali*!,  because  nidi  an 
apjiointnicnt  or  conveyance,  if  it  avail  to  any  pui'pose,  must 
avail  to  tlie  destruction  of  the  power,  since  it  would  he  no 
longer  revoeahle,  as  a  will  would  he.  The  distinction  hetwecn 
this  case  and  the  ca.<c  of  a  power  executed  hy  will,  thoiiirh  re- 
<juired  to  he  executed  hy  deed,  is  marked  and  <ih\i->u>.  An 
act  done  not  strictly  accordini^  to  the  terms  of  the  i)uwer,  hut 
consistent  Avith  its  intent,  may  he  upheld  in  equity.  ]hit  an 
act  which  defeats  the  intention  of  the  person  creating  the 
power,  and  detennines  the  control  over  the  pr<»j)crty,  which 
was  meant  to  rest  in  the  donee,  is  repugnant  to  it,  and  cannot 
be  deemed  in  any  just  sense  to  be  an  execution  of  it.^ 

In  all  cases,  however,  where  the  aid  of  the  court  is  souglit 
for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  defective  execution  of  a  power, 
the  i»ai'ty  seeking  relief  must  stand  upon  some  equity  superior 
to  that  of  the  party  against  whom  he  seeks  it.'  There  can  be 
no  relief,  if  the  aid  of  the  defective  execution  would  he  in- 
equitable to  other  parties,  or  if  it  is  repelled  by  some  counter- 
equity.^  As  against  a  purchaser  for  valuable  consideration 
without  notice,  equity  will  in  no  case  aid  the  defective  execu- 
tion of  a  |X)wer.''  But  as  against  a  remainderman,  Mho  takes, 
although  by  purchase,  subject  to  tlie  power.'  and  also  in  gen- 
eral as  against  an  heir-at-law  or  customary  heir,''  relief  mav  he 
had  against  the  defective  execution  of  a  power.  Whetiier, 
however,  equity  will  allord  its  aid  as  against  an  heir  totally  uu- 
pro\ided  lor,  seems  dmibtlul  upon  the  authorities.' 

' /i'..,  Sii^.  I'ow.  SCO.  r>C.l.    S.'o,  also,  "Toilet  c.  Toilet,  2    V.  "Wins.  4S9: 

Cockerell  v.  Cholnielcy,  1  li.  <t  M.  42t ;  Shannon  v.  Bradstrcct.  1  Sell.  A  Lef.  52. 

2  H.  «t  M.  751 ;  but  see,  22  &  23  Viet.  *  Sniitii  »-.  Asliton,  ]  Ch.  «  a.  263.  204. 

c.  35,  s.  13.  '  Cliapnian  i-.  Gibson,  3  Bro.  ('.  V. 

'  Suff.  Pow.  541 ;  2  Chanc.  Pow.  502,  220;    Hills   r.   Downton.    5  Ve.s.    564; 

504.  507.  Braddick    v.   Mattock.   6    MacUL    303; 

'  Supra,  pp.  366,  367.  Ilodgi-r.s  r.  Maoliall.  17  Vuv  2".t4  ;  Sug. 

*  1  Fonb.   Kfj.   Bk.  1,  cli.   1,  s.  7,  n.  Bow.  rAr>;   Wliitc  d-  TuJ.   L.  C.  voL  J, 

(v).  pp.  212.  2i;j. 


Ill  MISIAM-:. 

In  eases  of  (loleetivc  cxccututii  ol"  powers  a  distiiiction  exists 
between  powers  wliieli  are  i-reated  liv  ])rivate  jK'rsoiis,  and  tlioso 
wliieh  are  sperially  ereated  l)y,  <»r  eonie  witliin,  a  statute.  The 
latter  are  eonstrned  willi  lunri-  !>tiittiu>s,  and  wliatt\cr  t'ornial- 
ities  are  re<]nir(.'d  liy  the  statiiti"  iini>t  be  jiuiu'tually  eoniplied 
witli.*  In  the  ease  of  j)owi'rs  whiih  are  in  tlieir  own  nature 
stjitntable,  ecjuity  must  follow  the  law,  be  the  e(»n>ideratit»n 
ever  so  nieritorions.  Thus  ihe  powi-r  of  a  tenant-in-tail  to 
make  leases  under  a  statute,  if  not  executed  in  the  requisite 
form  prescribed  by  the  statute  will  not  be  made  available  in 
equity,  however  meritorious  the  consideration  maybe;*  and, 
indeed,  it  may  be  stated  as  ^'enerally  true,  that  the  remedial 
power  of  courts  of  equity  does  not  extend  to  the  supjdy  of 
any  circumstances,  for  the  want  of  which  the  legislature  has 
declared  the  instrument  void,  for  otherwise  equity  would  de- 
feat the  very  policy  of  legislative  enactments.' 

AltluiUgh  a  court  of  equity  will  not  in  general  aid  the  de- 
tective execution  of  a  power  in  favor  of  a  volunteer  exeej>t  in 
j)articular  cases,'  the  defective  execution  of  a  power  Mill  be 
aided  in  favor  of  a  volunteer,  when  a  strict  compliance  with 
the  jiower  has  been  impossible,  from  circumstances  beyond  the 
rontrol  of  the  party,  as  when  the  prescrilad  witnesses  could 
not  be  found  ;  or  where  an  intere.-trd  j.arty  having  jwssession 
of  the  deed  creating  the  ]>(.w(.'r,  has  kept  it  from  the  sight  of 
the  party  executing  the  p<»wcr,  so  that  la- coiiM  not  ascertain 
the  formalities  required.* 

So  also  although  a  court  of  e<piity  will  in  no  case  aid  the 
non-execution  of  a  power,  an  distinguished  from  its  defective 

'  Dnrlinjjfon  v.  I'liltj-nny.  f'owp.  'J''>7 ;  <>'J1,  •'•'J.';  Tliompson  r.  Smitli,  1  MuiK!. 

'i  ('liJin<-.  I'ow.  ri41-M:> ;  Sup.  I'nw.  'J'Hi.  ijv.'i. 

>  1  Font).  i:<|.  Uk.  J,  ch.  !.«.  7.  n.  (/);  '  Sunra.  p.  :i7tt. 

Curti.H  r.  IVrry.  '5   V'«-h.    T.IV,  liU,  7-li'..  *1  Foub.  i:<|    Hk.  1,  cli.  Ti,  s.  2,  n.  (/i). 

747;  MfBlncr  f.  (JllUspic,  11  V«i«.  021. 


•  Brifiht  r.  Boyd,  1  Sfo/y,  47?^;  Mrnridc  r.  Wilkinson.  Cit  .\lii.  G02. 


MISTAKE.  44.' 

exfciiliuii,*  fill-  case  i.s  otlicrwisf,  il"  tlie  cxfciitiou  of  a  powcT 
has  been  prcvi'iifcil  l»y  I'raud,  as  wlierc  tliu  dccil  crcatiii;;  tlic 
power  lias  been  iVauduleiitly  retained  by  tlie  jjerson  intcreiited 
in  its  non-execution.  In  sucli  and  nimilar  eases  equity  will 
grant  relief  on  the  ground  of  fraud.* 

In  like  manner,  as  e<[uity  will  i,'ivo  relief  ap^ainst  mistake 
in  written  instruments,  so  also  it  will  irraiit  relief  and  su[)ply 
dcfects  when,  by  mistake,  parties  have  omitted  any  acts  or 
circumstances  necessary  to  give  effect  and  validity  to  written 
instruments.  Thus  equity  will  supply  any  defect  of  circum- 
stances in  conveyances  occasioned  by  mistake:  as  of  a  surren- 
der in  the  case  of  copyholds:  so  also  misprision  and  omission 
in  deeds,  awards,  and  other  solemn  instruments,  wherelty  they 
are  defective  at  law.'  It  will  also  interfere  in  cases  of  mistake 
in  judgments,  and  in  matters  of  record  injm-ious  to  the  right 
of  the  party.* 

The  equity  for  supplying  surrenders  of  copyliolds,  origi- 
nates in  the  doctrine  that  a  copyhold  does  not  pass  by  grant  or 
devise,  but  by  a  surrender  into  the  hands  of  the  lord  to  the 
use  of  the  grantee  or  the  will.  In  the  one  case  the  grantee  is 
entitled  to  immediate  admission;  in  the  other,  the  person 
designated  in  the  will  is  entitled  to  admission  on  the  testator's 
death.  If  a  grant  or  .devise  were  made  without  a  previous 
surrender,  it  was  formerly  inoperative  at  law ;  but  if  it  were 
made  for  a  valuable  consideration,  and  in  particular  cases,  if  it 
were  made  for  a  meritorious  consideration,  the  surrender 
might  be  supplied  in  equity.'  The  supplying  the  surrender  of 
a  copyhold  and  the  supplying  the  execution  of  a  jiower  which 

'Toilet  V.   Toilet,  2  P.   Wms.  4S0;  the  trroiind  of  mistake,  Cannan  ».  Rev- 

Piijccott  V.  Pcnrice,  Com.  250,  Gilb.  Eq.  nokls,  5  E.  <fc  B.  301. 

Rep.  138.  'Rogers  v.  Marshall.    17  Ves.   204; 

^  Supra,  p.  211,  212.  but  sec  as  to  case  of  n^oritorious  con- 

'  1  Fonb.  Eq.  Bk.  1,  ch.  1,  s.  7.  sidcration,  Jeffcrvs   i:  Joffens,  Cr.  <b 

*  Jeremy  Eq.  Jur.  p.  402,  Story,  Eq.  I'll.   i:iS;  Tathani  v.  V.rnon,"20  Bear. 

Jur.    100.'     See   as   to  jurisdiction   of  C.oi  ;    White   A'   Tud.   L.  C,  voL  I,  p. 

courts  of  law  over  their  owu  records  on  Sua. 


•140  MlSTAKi;. 

is  defective  in  forni,  :;»•  liaml  in  li.ind.  WluTcver  there  is  a 
decision  that  tlie  court  will  .-ni'i'ly  the  uiie,  it  loliows  that  it 
\rill  al.-<o  8U})i»ly  tlie  ntlicr.' 

The  jiirisilictiun  to  t;uj»j>ly  a  surrender  existed  wliether  the 
gift  were  l»y  deed  or  ■will,'  hut  it  was  ordinarily  called  into 
exercise  in  the  case  of  wills.  It  has,  however,  hecn  rendered 
of  little  practical  importance  hy  the  enactment  that  all  real 
estate  may  he  devised  hy  will,  ami  that  copyhitlds  shall  be 
induced  under  that  description,  notwithstandini,'  that  the 
testator  may  not  have  8urrend«'red  them  to  the  use  of  his  will, 
uor  have  even  been  himself  admitted  to  them.'^ 

In  like  manner,  as  equity  will  i^ive  relief  aijainst  mistakes 
in  written  instruments,  will  it  give  eti'ect  to  tin-  real  intention 
of  the  jiarties,  as  gathered  from  the  objects  of  the  instrument 
and  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  although  the  instrument 
may  be  drawn  up  in  a  very  inartiiicial  and  untechnical  man- 
ner. For,  however  just  the  general  rule  may  be,  quotics  in 
verbis  nnlla  ed  umhlguiias^  ill  nulla  expositio  contra  verba 
fenda  e^f*  yet  that  rule  shall  not  prevail  to  defeat  the  mani- 
fest intent  and  object  of  the  parties  where  it  is  clearly  discern- 
ible on  the  iace  of  the  instrument,  and  the  ignorance,  or 
blunder,  or  mistake  of  the  ])arties  has  ]>rcvented  them  from 
expressing  it  in  the  api»r(»i)riate  language.' 

In  regard  to  mistake  in  awards,  the  com-t  will  not  relieve 
against  an  award  on  the  ground  of  mistake,  either  in  matter  of 
law  or  fact,  if  the  award  is  within  the  submission,  and  contains 
thr  hone.-t  deci.-ii»n  of  the  arbitrators  after  a  full  and  lair 
hearing  nt"  the  ]>arties,  and  the  nii.-t.ike  dues  not  appear  ou  the 
face  of  the  awanl,  or  is  n<tt  dix-losed  by  some  conteni|>orane<>us 
•writing."*     JUit    if  tlu*   mistake  aj»pears  on  the    face  of  the 

•  SayiT   V.    Sny<r.    7    Hn.    :;n7.    /"r  ♦  Cm.  I/itf.  U7  n 

■Wi-riiii  V.-C,  »i'i/,r(i,  p.  3il8.  ■'  ,l<'r«'iiiv  i;»|.  .Itir.  p   .'!t>7,  3t'i8,  Story 

'  ::    lir.rs  i'.  MiirHlmll,  17  Vot.  '.'04.  lit]  .liir.  It'.s. 

•1  Vict.  c.  26,  •.  8.  ». .111.1. (itli    V.   Gc'ur,  '2   Vrrn.  705; 


♦  1  Bourk  r.  Will.-,  4  .IoIiuh.  (*Ii.  Ki".;  C'iinl  r   Wnllacc.   7  Dana.  100; 


MisTAic::.  447 

awiird,^  or  is  disclosed  liy  Sdiiu;  (•(•iitciiiporanL-oiis  writiii;^;,'"  or 
if  the  iirbitratur  vuluiitariiv  admit  a  mistake,' or  state  circum- 


Cliinp  f.  Cliinp.  (>  Yes.  2S2;   Voiinj^  v.  '  ITopcrc  r.  Burcpf?,  3  II.  <t  X.  2'J:{. 

WnlU-r,  9  Vi's.  ;U")."i ;  (JoodniJin  r.  Siiyijs,  '  Knox  v.  SyriiDiidH,   1  Yen.  Jr.   oO'J  ; 

2  J.  .t  \V.  21'.l  ;  \\\hh\  v.  CriflUli,  1  Sw.  Mills   v.    IJowyirs'  Society,  U   K.   «t  .1. 

nit;  Stcfl'i'.  Aiuircws  2  Madd.  T) ;  I'lico  08;  but  sr.-  I'liilipiis  r.  KvatiH,  12  M.  <<: 

V.  Jones  2  Y.  A-  J.  Ill ;  llaigh  v.  ilaigli,  W.  ;J0'J  ;   llogi,'o  v.  Burgesa,  3  11.  «k  N. 

'A  I)  F.  <t  J.  ir.7.  203. 
'  Morgan  t-.  Mather,  2  Ves.  Jr.  15. 


Cleavcland  v.  Dixon,  4  J.  J.  Marsli.  220 ;  Torrance  v.  Lamsdcn,  3  McLean, 
509  ;  Winsbip  v.  Jcwctt,  1  Barb.  Ch.  173 ;  BcU  r.  Price,  2  N.  J.  578  ;  Nance 
V.  Tlionipson,  1  Snced,  321 ;  Johnson  v.  Noble,  13  N.  11.  280. 

Notliini,'  is  to  l)C  considered  iii)p:ircnt  upon  an  award  but  what  fomis 
a  part  of  it ;  no  calculations  or  any  of  the  ^^rounds  of  it  unless  annt  xed  to 
it  or  incorporated  with  it  at  the  time  of  delivery.  Taylor  r.  Nicholson,  1 
Hen.  &  :Munf.  07 ;  Wheatlcy  v.  Martin,  0  Leigh.  02. 

If  arbitrators  certify  the  principles  upon  which  they  proceed,  a  mistake 
may  be  corrected.  It  is  incompetent  to  show  by  proof  a  mere  mi.slakc 
of  law  or  of  fact.  Bumpass  r.  "SVcbb.  4  Port.  05  ;  Pleasants  v.  Koss,  1  Wash. 
(Va.),  150;  Ryan  r.  Bhnit,  1  Dev.  1^[.  3S2. 

Mistakes,  whicli  are  grounds  for  exceptions  to  the  report  at  law,  will 
not  constitute  good  grounds  lor  interference  in  equity.  Hurst  r.  Ilurst,  2 
Wash.  C.  C.  127;  Head  r.  Xuir,  3  Rand.  122;  Wheatley  r.  Martin,  0 
Leigh.  02 ;  Howard  v.  Wartield,  4  H.  &  McII.  21. 

An  award  may  be  set  aside  in  equity  for  a  palpable  mistake  of  law  or 
fact  upon  a  material  point.  Hartshorn  v.  Cuttrell,  1  Green's  Ch.  297; 
Van  Cortland  v.  Underhill.  17  Johns.  405 ;  2  Johns.  Ch.  339;  Ilattin  v.  De- 
tinaud,  2  Dessau.  570. 

The  mistake  must  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  show  that  the  deduction 
of  the  arbitrator  was  a  mistaken  inference  from  the  facts,  or  that  the 
facts  themsolvcs  did  not  authorize  the  conclusions  drawn  from  tliem. 
Cleavcland  r.  Dixon.  4  J.  J.  Marsli.  220 ;  Ewing  r.  Beaucliamp,  2  Bibb, 
450. 

It  must  ajipear  that  the  arbitrators  intended  to  be  governed  strictly  by 
the  law  or  the  fact  mistaken.     Ilollingsworth  r.  Lupton,  4  Munf.  114. 

An  error  in  judgment  up«n  tlic  merits  is  no  ground  whatever  for  the 
interposition  of  a  court  of  equity.  Plartshom  r.  Cuttrell.  1  Green.  Ch. 
297;  Boston  \Yater  Power  Co.  v.  Gray,  0  Met.  131;  Burchcll  r.  .Alarsh,  17 
How.  344 ;  Cromwell  r.  Owings.  0  H.  &  J.  10 ;  Van  Cortland  r.  Unilerhill, 
17  Johns.  405  ;  McVichar  r.  Wolcott,  4  Johns.  509  ;  Rudd  r.  Jones,  4  Dana, 
229;  Ormsby  r.  Bakenell,  7  Ohio,  98 ;  Head  r.  Muir,  3  Rand.  122;  Rad- 
diffe  V.  Wigiitman,  1  McCord's  Ch.  408. 

Wlien  it  appears  that  the  parties  intended  to  submit  a  question  of  law 


•MS  MlSIAKi:. 

Ktancos  which  show  rlivirly  that  tlie  i>r(tcc't'(lin:;s  have  hccn 
erroneous,*  e<iuify  will  relieve  or  remit  the  award  haek  t<)  tho 
nrbitratoi*s  uiuler  the  Coininon  Law  Proee<liire  Act,"  unless 
the  Bubniission  has  heen  made  a  rule  <>f  eoiirt  under  statute  9 
S:  1<»  "Will.  ;'.,  c.  l.'i,  in  which  case  api>lication  must  he  made  to 
the  court  in  which  it  has  been  made  u  rule. 

In  rejjard  to -mistakes  in  wills,  a  court  of  eciuity  has  juris- 
diction to  correct  them  when  they  are  apparent  on  the  face  of 
the  will,  ur  may  be  made  out  by  a  due  constructit»n  of  its 
terms.  Ihit  the  mistake  must  be  apjtarent  on  the  face  of  the 
will,  otherwise  there  can  be  no  relief;  for  at  least  since  the 
Statute  of  Frauds,  Mhich  requires  wills  to  be  in  writinj^ 
(whatever  may  liave  been  the  case  before  tlie  statute),'  parol 
evidence,  or  evidence  dehors^  the  will  is  not  admissible  to 
contradict,  varv,  or  control  the  words  of  the  will,  althou<di 
it  is  in  certain  cases  admissible  to  exj)lain  the  meanini,'  of 
the  words  which  the  testator  has  used.'*'^ 

A  mistake  cannot  be  corrected  or  an  omission  supplied, 
unless  it  is  perfectly  clear  by  lair  inference  from  the  whole 
will  that  there  is  such  a  mistake  or  omission,'     The  lirst  thin;; 

'  Mills  I.  Bowyers'Socioty,  3  K.  4  J.  'Sec  Milncr  v.  Milncr,  1  Vos.   106; 

f.6      See  Dankart  t-.  Iloughtun,  a  D.  F.  Wi;rrniii  on  Wills,  p.  &. 

jt  J.  la  *  M'Jn.r   I'.    .Miltur.  1    Vt-s.    106;  V\. 

*  17  «t  18  Vict.  c.  V1T>,  8.  8;   Mills  v.  ricli  v.  I/ituhtifKi,  'J  Atk.  37:! ;  Jiirni.  on 

Ikjwyt-rV  S<Kicty,  :j   K.  «t  J.  66;  Ait-  W  ills,  vol.  1,  p.  886:  Wigrain  on  Wills, 

kc-n'rt  Arbitrarjon.   »  Jur.   N.  S.    1296.  pp.  f).  8. 

Seo  lI'KljjkiiiHoii  t'.  KiTiiic,  li  C.  11.  N.  S.  '  I'liilipps  v.  Chaniberlainc,  4  Vcs.  67. 
lb»;  llogge  r.  liurgcsa,  y  II.  «t  N.  Vi'i. 


nlonc  the  dorisinn  is  liindiiifr,  thnupfh  contrary  to  l.'iw.  Smith  r.  Sinilli,  \ 
liantl.  ti5 ;  Criibtrcc  r.  (Jn  i-ii.  y  CJio.  H. 

A  nuBtakf  in  jutlffnunt  \\\w\\  ii  <loul»tfuI  question  of  hiw  is  not  sulH- 
cient.  Campbell  r.  'NVestem,  !J  Puigc,  \'iA\  Morris  r.  Ross,  2  Ihn.  tt  iliinf. 
408;  Clcary  r.  Cour,  1  Hey.  12.'). 

♦  Trexter  r.  Miller,  0  Ired.  K<|.  2lH;  Gooder.  Goode,  22  Mo.  018;  Hunt 
c.  While,  2t  Tex.  «i:J;  Jackson  r.  Payne,  2  Met,  (Ky.)  5(57. 

An  omission  of  the  retjuiHitc  numlKT  of  nubscribing  witnesses  cannot 
be  corrected.     Nutt  r.  Nutt,  1  Freeman's  Cii.  128. 


MISTAKE.  449 

to  be  proved  in  all  cases  is  that  there  is  a  mistake.*  The  mis- 
take must  bo  a  elear  mistake  or  a  clear  oiiiis.-ioii,  (lemonstrahle 
from  the  structure  and  sc()i)0  of  the  will."  Thus,  it'  in  ;i  will 
tUere  is  a  mistake  in  the  computation  of  a  Ie<,'acy,  it  will  he 
rectified  in  equity."  So,  if  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  name, 
deserii)tion,  or  number  of  the  legatees  intended  to  take/  or  in 
the  property  intended  to  he  bequeathed,'  and  the  mistake  is 
clearly  demonstrable  from  the  structure  and  scope  of  tlie  will, 
equity  will  correct  it. 

llelief  cannot,  however,  be  had,  miless  the  mistake  be 
clearly  made  out."  And  so,  if  the  words  of  the  bequest  are 
plain,  evidence  of  a  different  intention  is  inadmissible  to  estab- 
lish a  mistake ; '  nor  will  a  mistake  be  rectified,  if  it  does  not 
appear  clearly  wliat  the  testator  wonld  have  done  in  the  case, 
if  there  had  been  no  mistake.*  But  if  the  omission  of  some 
word  or  phrase  is  so  palpable  on  the  face  of  the  will,  that  no 
difiiculty  occurs  in  pronouncing  the  testator  to  have  used  an 
expression  which  does  not  accurately  convey  his  meaning,  and 
it  is  not  only  apparent  that  he  has  used  the  wrong  word  or 
phrase,  but  it  is  also  apparent  what  is  the  right  one,  the  court 
will   substitute   the   right   one.^*     Although   the   particulars 

'  Mellisli  V.  Millish,  if>.  40.  v.  Fell,  2  P.  Wms.   Ml  ;   Hampshire  v. 

*  III.;    I'hilipps  )'.  Chambcrlninc,  ib.  Peirce,  2  Yes.  '210;  lirachviu  r.  llarpur, 
51,  57 ;  D.l  Mare  v.  Hobello,  3  Bro.  C.  Aiubl.  374  ;  Jarin.  on  Wills,  vol.  1,  p. 
C.  445  ;  Purse  r.  8iiaplin,  1  Atk.  415 ;  '6'J-i ;  ib.  vol.  2,  pp.  178,  181. 
IIolni03  i'.  distance,  12  Yes.  270.  "Door  v.   Geary,    1  Vcs.   255;  i?el- 

^  Milner  v.  Milner,  1  Yes.  106  ;  Dan-  wood  v.  Mildniay,  3  Yes.  3u6. 
vers  r.  .Mannini;,  2  Pro.  C.  C.  18;  Door  *  Holmes  v.  Lustance,  12  Yes.  270. 

r.   Geary.    1   Yes.   255,  256;    Giles  v.  '  Ciiambers  r.  Minchin,  4  Yes.  ti76. 

Giles,  1  Keen,  692.  "  Sec  Smith  v.  Maitland,  1  Yes.  Jr. 

•  Stebbiiig  V.  Walkev,  2  Bro.  C.  C  363. 

85;   Uiver'3  Case,  1  Alk.  410;  Parsons  *  Taylor  i'.  Ilicliarda  .n,  2  Drew.  16. 

V.  I'arsous,  1   Yes.  Jr.  26G;  Beaumont 


*  Wood  r.  White,  32  Me.  340. 

The  name  of  one  legatee  cannot  be  stricken  out  and  that  of  another 
inserted.     Gates  v.  Cole,  1  Jones' Eq.  110. 

The  word  "  dollars  "  may  be  inserted  after  fifteen  hundred.  Snyder  r, 
Warbassc,  3  Stockt.  4G3. 


l.'iO  MISTAKE. 

wliioli  tlic  testator  lias  inrhulcil  in  lii.s  dcsL-riptioii  of  the  pmjv 
erty.  the  suhjeot  of  tlie  «,nft,  slutuhl  he  iiiaeeurate,  the  <^ift.  will 
he  iiphehl  if  there  he  enough  of  correspondence  to  afloril  the 
means  of  identitieation.'  If  \\iv  jtntpert)'  tlie  suhject  of  the 
gill  he  eai)ahle  of  heinjjj  accurately  ideiitilied,  CL-rtaiii  errors  in 
the  de?cri[»tion  will  not  vitiate  the  f^ift.^ 

The  same  considerations  apply,  when  the  j):irticidars  whieh 
the  testator  lias  included  iu  his  di'scripfinu  ot'the  ohject  of  the 
udft  are  iiuu'curate.  If  llu'  devisee  or  Icf^ntec  is  so  desi;rnated 
as  to  he  distinguished  from  every  other  person,  the  inaptitude 
of  some  of  the  particulars  introduced  in  the  description  is  im- 
material.^ If  there  is  a  person  to  answer  the  name  given  in 
the  will,  it  is  immaterial  that  any  further  descnption  docs  not 
precisely  apply.*  A  gift  hy  will  to  a  ])erson  descrihed  jvs  tho 
hushand,  or  wife,  or  widow  of  another,  is  not  in  general  afl'ected 
hy  the  fact  of  the  devisee  or  legatee  not  actually  answcnng  the 
description,  by  reason  of  the  invalidity  of  the  supposed  mar- 
riage, or  hy  reason  of  the  second  marriage  of  the  supposed 
widow  or  otherwise.'  And  on  the  same  principle  a  legacy  to 
a  person  descrihed  as  the  testator's  intended  wife,  luis  hcen  held 
to  be  payable  although  the  testator  did  not  eventually  marry 
her."  A  dill'crent  rule,  however,  prevails  where  a  fraud  has 
been  j»racticed  on  a  testator,  the  knowledge  or  discovery  ot 
which,  there  is  reason  to  helieve,  would  have  destroyetl  or  re- 
moved the  motive  tbr  the  gift.  Wlu-ii,  for  example,  a  testatrix 
un<ler  a  j)i>wer  of  api)oiMtiin'iit  heipieathed  a  legacy  to  a  num 
whom  siie  described  and  w  ith  whom  she  lived  as  her  hu-;hand, 
but  the  marriage  wa.4  invalid  on  account  of  his  having  a  wife 
at  the  lime,  which  fact  was  not  known  t(»  the  testatrix,  the  he- 

'  Junn.  on  Will».  vol.  1.  p.  :r.i|  |).l  MarL-  r.  lloht-ll.).  :i   Hro.  C.  C.  Mtj; 

'  l>oor  r.  (M'liry,  1  V«"4.  "J-'i-'i ;  >il\v()()(l  llolni  i  i'.  ('u>riiii'i',  lU  Vi"<.  'JTU. 

r  Mil.linav.  :J  Vi-ii.  3U«J;  Jttriii.  oil  Wlllii,  '  (Tilrn  r.   (;il.-s.    1    K-cii.    (;,S.^,    092, 

vol.  1,  p.  :Vj«.  fiy-'J;  Kixlii-'tj  i-   (obi),  ft  .M.  A  V.  IJf  ; 

•  Jnriii   on  Willn,  voJ    1.  p.  '.i'JV.  lie  IVili*.  'i7  M-av.  r.7<i. 

*  blandcn  v.  .Sti.n«I»'ii,  2  Wvs.  Jr.  689;  *  Sclilosu  c.  btiubel,  0  Sliu.  I. 


MISTAKE.  451 

quest  was  lield  void.*  Tlu!  (jiK'slioii  in  all  sncli  casr-s  in, 
wlictlicr  tiu'  iiiistakt' of  the  testator  lias  Im'oii  iinluced  Iiv  tliu 
i'niiid  of  the  oliject  of  his  intciMh-d  hounty.  'rhouirh  it  is  clear 
that  a  lei^acj  «.,Mveii  to  a  person  in  a  ciiaracter  whieii  the  lei^atoc 
does  nut  till,  and  by  tlie  fraudulent  assumption  of  wliich  char- 
acter tlic  testator  has  been  deceived,  will  not  take  effect ;  yet  if 
the  testator  is  not  dcccix  ed,  althou<,di  a  false  character  is  in  fact 
assumed,  tlie  legacy  will  bo  good.  A  fortiori  it  will  be  good, 
if  both  parties  not  only  knew  the  actual  facts,  but  are  design- 
edly parties  to  the  assumption  of  the  ialsc  character.^  A  false 
reason,  however,  given  for  a  legacy,  is  not  alone  a  sutlicient 
ground  to  avoid  the  act  or  bequest  in  equity.  To  have  such 
an  effect,  it  must  be  clear  that  no  other  motive  minijled  in  the 
legacy,  and  that  it  constituted  the  substantial  ground  for  the 
act  or  bequest.^ 

If  the  language  of  a  will  is  either  capable  of  more  than  one 
meaning,  or  is  incapable  of  any  certain  meaning,  parol  evidence 
cannot  be  admitted  to  show  what  the  testator  intended  to  have 
expressed.*  But  parol  evidence  is  admissible  for  the  purpose 
of  explaining  the  meaning  of  the  terms  he  has  used.^  The 
court  in  construing  a  will  cannot  shut  its  eyes  to  the  state  of 
facts  under  which  the  will  was  niade.f  Although  in  general 
evidence  as  to  the  amount  or  state  of  the  testator's  proi^erty,  is 
inadmissible  to  influence  the  construction  of  the  will;''  yet,  if 
he  inaccurately  or  imperfectly  describes  the  gift,  so  as  to  make 
the  interpretation  of  the  words  in  thcii*  primary  sense  impos- 

'  Kcnnell  v.  Abbott,  4  Ves.  801.  of  itself  sufficicut   to  destroy  it.     But 

'  Giles  V.  Giles,    1  Keen,   68.5,  692,  there  must  be  an  exception  of  any  fraud 

693»  practiced   from  which   it  may  be  pre- 

'  Kcnnell  V.  Abbott,  -t  Ves.  802.  The  sumcd  that  the  person  givinc;  ihc  legacy 

civil  law  seems  to  have  proceeded  upon  would  not,  if  that  fraud  had  been  known 

the   same   ground.     The   Digest   says,  to  him,  have  given  it.     Kenuell  v.  Ab- 

Faisam  cansam  Icffalo  non  obcsse  veriiis  bolt,  4  Ves.  80S. 

est;  quia  ratio  le;/aitdi  legato  iion  co/uv-  *  Wigram  on  Wilis,  •,•.'•. 

ret.     iScil  plernmquc  dolt  exccplio  locum  '  Jh.  S.     ijce   Grey  v.   Pearson,  6  IL 

habcbit,  si  probelur,  alias  Icffalurum  no7i  L.  100. 

fuisse.    Dig.  Lib.  35,  tit.  1,'leg.  72,  g  6.  '  Jarm.  on  Wills,  vol.  1,  pp.  393,  394. 

Tiie  meaning  of  this  passage  is  that  a  '  //*.  3'J4,  and  cases  cited. 

false  reason  given  for  the  legacy  is  not 


452  Misr.vKi:. 

Bible,  ]iart»l  evi<lcnce  is  luliuissiltk'.'  The  })riiK-ii»lo  is  cxoinpli- 
licd  in  those  cases  in  wliicli  :i  devise  of  land  at  a  ^iven  place 
has  boon  extended  to  property  not  strictly  answering  to  tho 
locality,  because  tliere  is  none  wliicli  does  ])recisely  correspond 
to  it ; '  or  in  wliicli  an  apparently  specific  be<iuest  of  stuck  in 
the  public  funds  has  been  held  to  autlutrize  ])aynient  of  tho 
legacy  out  of  the  general  personal  estate,  the  testator  having 
no  such  stock  when  he  made  the  be<piest.'  So  also  if  the  sub- 
ject of  devise  is  described  by  reference  to  some  extrinsic  fact, 
it  is  not  merely  competent  but  necessary  to  admit  extrinsic 
evidence  to  ascertain  the  subject  of  devise.* 

The  same  considerations  apply  when  tlie  description  or 
terms  employed  by  the  testator  arc  insufficient  to  determine 
the  person  intended  by  the  tc.-tatoi-.  If  tlie  object  of  the 
testator's  bounty,  or  the  person  meant  by  him,  is  described  in 
terms  which  are  applicable  indifferently  to  more  tiian  one 
person,  parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  prove  which  of  the 
persons  so  described  was  intended  by  the  testator.' 

If  the  wc»rds  of  a  will,  aided  by  evidence  of  the  material 
facts  of  the  case,  are  iusutUcient  to  determine  the  meaning  of 
the  testator,  evidence  to  prove  the  sense  in  which  he  intended 
to  use  them  is,  as  a  general  proposition,  inadmissible."  Thus, 
evidence  is  inadmissible  for  tlie  pui*])ose  of  filling  up  a  total 
blank  in  a  will,''  or  inserting  a  devise  inadvertently  omitted  by 
the  mistake  of  the  person  drawing,  making,  or  coj)ying  tho 
will,'  or    of  ])roving  what    mms    meant    by    an    unintelligible 


'  Fonncronux  v.  Toyntz,  1  IJro.  (\  ('..  *  Wi;;riiiii  on  \\'\\\'*,  in-.t;  Jurnmii  on 

472;  Att.-fn-n.   v.  Grot**,   '.i   Mcr.   310;  Wills,  \o\.   1,  pp.  4<MM(i:t,   nml  coaes 

t'<t1j>ov«  I'.  ColpoyM,  Jttc.  4&1;   Wi;;rain  cilid. 

on  WillH,  r,r,.  "  \Vi;,Tftm  on  WilN.  j.p.  '.tl,  <.tS. 

'l»w  V.  UohcriJ*,   1  IJ.  A    Alii. -Itt?;  '  UnvliM    •>.    Alt.CJm..   'i  Atk.   239; 

Jarm.  on  WilU,  vol.  I,  p.  3H3.  ('nHili-tlun  r.  Tiirtur,  :t  Alk.  2.">7 ;  Hunt 

•  Silwoo<l  f.  MHdniay,  »  Vcn.  30r, ;  ,•.  llort,  3  Ifro.  ('.  ('.  oil;  Tiiylor  ••. 
Jarm.  on  WilJH.  vol.  I,  p.  3t»l.  l<i<'li(ir(lHnn,  2  Drt-w.  It".. 

•  SnnfonI  r.  Kniki-M,  1  MiT.  f<An,  pc-  *  Ncwburfjjii  »•.  Nc'\vl)un;li,  fi  Mndd. 
Sir  W.  (Jrant;  Wrhb  r.  liynp,  1  K.  Ji  '.id  ;  Jnrni.  on  Wills,  vol.  I,  p.  382.  It 
J.  680;  Jurnj.  on  WIII.h,  vol.  I,  |i   '','.>!  wduM,  Iiowimt,  Hctin  llmt  if  a  cl.ium) 


MlSTAKi:.  4ij3 

word;'  or  df  pnivin:::  that  a  tliiii;^  in  huhstaiice  diircrciit  from 
that  dcpcrlbc'il  in  the  will  wuh  intended;'  of  clian^iii^  tlio 
person  dcserihed;^  or  of  recoiicilin^i^  conllicliM;^  claii.-'C.s  in  a 
will.* 

AVherc  a  testator,  Ly  a  codicil,  revokes  a  devise  or  bequest 
in  his  will,  or  in  a  ])rcvious  codicil,  expres.-^ly  f^roundin^  sucli 
revocation  on  the  assiinij)tion  of  u  fact  which  tni-ns  out  to  be 
false,  the  revocation  does  not  take  cll'ect,  bein^,  it  is  considered, 
conditional  and  dei)endent  on  a  contin-^ency  which  fails.*  So 
also  if  a  will  is  cancelled  by  mistake,  or  on  the  presumption 
that  a  later  will  is  good,  which  proves  void,  the  heir  is  not  let 
in,  but  the  mistake  may  be  relieved  against."  In  such  case 
equity  does  not  alter  the  will ;  it  merely  relieves  the  party  from 
the  effect  of  the  mistake,  thus  placing  him  in  the  same  condition 
as  if  the  mistake  had  not  happened.^ 

An  election  made  by  a  party  under  a  mistake  of  facts,  or  a 
misconception  as  to  his  rights,  is  not  binding  in  equity.  In 
order  to  constitute  a  valid  election,  the  act  done  must  be  with 
a  full  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  the 
right  to  which  the  person  put  to  his  election  was  entitled.^  In 
order  to  presume  an  election  from  the  acts  of  any  person,  that 
person  must  be  shown  to  have  liad  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the 
requisite  circumstances,  as  to  the  amount  of  the  different  prop 
ertics,  his  own  rights  in  respect  of  them,  itc'  A  person  who 
has  elected  under  a  misconception,  is  entitled  to  make  a  fre.->h 
election.^" 

be  inadvertently  introduced,  there  may  *  Onions  v.  Tyrcr,  1  P.  Wms.  "15. 

be  an  issue  to  try  whether  it  is  part  of  '  If). 

tlio  testator's  wUL     76.;    Wigrain  on  '  Wintour  v.  Clifton,    21  Beav.  468; 

Wills,  121.  afiirined  3  Jur.  X.  S.  74. 

'  Goblett  V.  Becchey,  3  Sim.  24.  "  Wake  v.  Wake.  1  Ves.  Jr.  335,  nnd 

»  yehvood  V.  Mildniay.  3  Ves.  306.  the  otlier  cases  mentioned  ;  1  Sw.  381, 

'  Del  Marc    v.  Robello,    1   Ves.    Jr.  n. ;  Reynard  v.  Speiice,  4   Beav.    103 ; 

412.  K(lward3   r.   Moi-fran,    13    IVi.    782;   1 

*  Ulrich  ».  Litchfield,  2  Atk.  372,  per  Bli^'li's  N.   S.  401 ;  Price  r.  Brice,  2 

Lord  llardwicke.  Moll.  21. 

'Campbell  v.   Frencli.   3  Vcs.  321;  '"  Kidney  r.  Coussmnker,  12  Ves.  136; 

Doi>  '■.  Evans,   10  A.  it  E.   228;  Jarm  Jarman  on  Wills,  vol.  I,  p.  441. 

on  Wills,  vol.  I,  p.  170. 


4,>4  MISTAKE. 

The  court  will  not  iii«juirf  into  tlio  fact  ol'  \\!i('fln'r  a 
testator  was  mistakiii  or  not  with  n-tiMViicu  to  his  tl:iu<^hter'8 
licaltli  and  eapatity,  assiijncil  ])y  his  will  as  a  eouditiuu  for 
inijiosini;  a  (-((nilitioH  in  restraint  of  marriage* 

The  costs  of  the  suit,  in  cases  (»f  nnstake,  dcpeml  on  tin* 
conduct  of  the  parties."  *  If  a  deed  is  set  aside  or  varied  on 
the  "xround  of  mistake,  the  decree  will  he  with  costs  jjgainst 
the  defendant,  if  the  suit  i.s  either  wholly  or  mainly  due  to  his 
conduct  in  the  matti-r.''  So  also  a  <k'cree  for  specific  i»erform- 
ancc  of  an  ordinary  ai^reenunt/  or  t>\'  an  ai^reement  hy  way  of 
c(tmi)romisc,^  will  be  with  costs,  if  the  case  set  uj)  hy  the 
defendant  fails  wholly  on  the  merits,  or  the  litii,Mtion  has  heen 
due  to  his  conduct  in  the  matter."  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
mistake  is  entirely  owiiii;  to  the  conduct  of  the  plaintilf,  he 
nmst  pay  all  the  costs  of  the  suit.'  So  also  if  the  case  set 
up  by  the  jdaintiff  wholly  fails  on  the  merits,  and  the  defend- 
ant has  not  been  to  blame  in  the  matter,  the  bill  will  be  dis- 
missed with  costs,  whether  the  object  of  the  suit  l)e  to  rectify 
an  instrument  or  to  rescind  a  transaction.® 

So  also  if  a  bill  for  the  s])ecitie  ])ertnrnian('C  of  an  agreement 


'  .Morloy  f.  Rennoldson.  2  Ila.  581.  '  Attwood  r.  ,  1  Iluss.  ^,'^.1 ;   s 

*  Mortiiiicr  v.  Slir.rtall,  2  Dr.  tt  War.  Russ.  loK;   iluu^liton  v.  Let-s,  1  .liir.  N. 
:i73;  Alvaiilc-y  v.  Kiiinniril.    2   Mac.   <k  S.  8t52. 

(J.  9;  Harris  v.  IVpperell,  L.  K.  r.  K.].  "  I'arkor  v.  TnswcU.  2  D.  A  J.  oTC 

1  ;  Kuj.Ki,  i>.  ;i2l.  ^  Harris  v.  I'lppfrfll,  L   It.  5  Kq.   1, 

*  l{in:;liatii  v.   J{inj;liam,   1  Ves.  12l>;  j>er  l.oriX  Uoinill}-. 

Kflst  India  Co.  V.  l)()iiidd.   0  Ves.    275;  '  Naylor  v.  Winch,  1  Sim.  it  St.  655; 

l)acTe  !•.    (Jor^fs,  2   Sim.    «t    Sf,  A:>(>\  Al»xand«r   c.  Cmi'hio.   LI.  tt  (J.    tdnp. 

Sturgc  r.  Sturi;*.',  12  lieiiv.  21.");  Mead-  Su>j.  ITi^;  Okill   r.  WliiltukiT,    1    l)<'>r. 

own  I'.  Mcnduw.i,  10  U.  av.  Inj  ;  Coward  ct  Sin.  MJ ;  2  Tli.  3:iS  ;   Wislhy  f.  Wost- 

t'.  Ilu-lii-8.  1  K.  Ai  .1.    J.'.J;  Cox  r.  llru-  liy.   2  Dr.  t<i    War.    6"2  ;    llowkins  r. 

e<»n.  :.  W.  K.  r.n  ;   I.i-uty  V.  llilla-',2  D.  .liukH'n,  2  Mac.  ct  <;.  :i72;   Meadows  v. 

«t  J.  122;    Kron^'liton    i'.    Hult,  :i  D.  it  Meadows.    IG    Heav.   M^U;    IJid-jway  v. 

J.    MM;   IJroun   v    Kennedy,   :i:{   Heuv.  Sney»l,  Kay.  fi:i7  ;    Itenlley  i'.  Mnckay, 

l.'>4;   Harris  i-.  re|>|«ereli.  L  11.  .')  I!<|.  1.  :tl  Heav.  ITiVi;  Hatenian  v.  I{<ivnlun.  L. 

*  I'arker  v.  Tujfwell,  '1  D.  .t  J.  i7r..  K.  1  Ch.  Apj..  :i08. 


"  A  l;ill  to  rpclify  on  inHtrumcnt  must  aver  tluit  it  difTcrs  from  tho 
intention  of  the  piirticg,  and  act  forlh  tho  particular^.  Unilc<l  States  c. 
Mimroc,  5  Miison,  172. 


MISTAKB.  455 

be  dismissed,  the  dismiss.il  will  Ik;  with  costs,  if  tlio  case  ol' 
mistake  as  set  up  Iiv  the  plaiiitill' iUils  «mi  tliu  merits.*  If  there 
have  hoeu  faults  on  hutli  sides,  costs  will  be  ^ivcii  to  iicilhiT, 
whether  the  olijcct  of' the  suit  be  to  ret-tily  or  ruseiiid  a  traiih- 
action.'* 

Althoui^^h  a  hill  fill-  the  i-cs('issi(»n  of  a  transaction,  on  the 
n;roun(l  of  mistake,  be  dismissed,  tlie  dismissal  will  be  without 
costs,  if  the  case  of  the  plaiutilf  be  a  reasonable  one  on  the 
merits;  but  his  title  to  relief  has  failed  through  the  al)sencc' 
of  due  diligence  on  his  part  in  filing  the  bill ;  *  or  because  the 
court  could  not  interfere  without  prejudicing  the  rights  of 
innocent  parties.^  So  also  although  a  bill  for  the  rectification 
of  an  instrument  be  dismissed,  the  dismissal  will  be  without 
costs,  if  the  case  as  set  up  by  the  plaintiff  be,  on  the  whole,  a 
reasonable  one.'  So  also  although  a  deed  be  cancelled,  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  may  be  sulIi  that  it  will  be  without 
costs."  So  also  although  a  bill  for  the  specific  perfbrmance  of 
an  agreement  be  dismissed,  the  dismissal  will  be  without  costs, 
if  the  defendant  has  been  to  blame  in  the  matter,  either  by 
mistaking  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  or  l)y  other  acts  of 
negligence;  and  the  refusal  of  the  court  to  interfere  has 
proceeded  merely  on  considerations  as  to  the  hardship  to 
which  the  defendant  would  be  exposed  by  being  compelled  to 
perform  his  agreement  specifically.''  So  also  where  there  has 
been   a   mutual    misunderstanding,^   or   where   the   terms   of 

'  Ilumpliric'S  v.  Ilorne,   3  lla.   27G;  '  Cockcrcll  c.  Cholmoley,  Tnml.  4-1.') : 

Mnxpy  '•.  liiicwoixl,  8  .hir.  N.  S.  bO:i  1  R.  tfc  M.  4--'r>;   A.<liliin>t  v.  Mill,  7  Ila. 

'  Hitchcock  V.  (iiddiiiiis,  4  I'li.  i:}.");  515,  516;   Harrow  v.  Harrow,   18  Beav. 

JIortiiiKT  I'.  Sliortall.  2  Dr.  it  War.  37:5;  537;  Lord  Bradford  v.  Lord  Hoinney. 

Murray  v.  Parker.    10  Bcav.    305;  Al-  30Boav.  441. 

vanlcy  v.  Kiiinaird,   2  -Mac.   A  G.   9;  '  I'liilippson  r.  Kerry.  32  Beav.  G38. 

Fowler  t'.   Scottish  l^juitable  Life  As-  '  Maliiis  v.   Freciiiaii,    2    Keen,    32; 

siirance  Society,  28  L.J.  (.h.  228;  Gar-  Manser  c.  Buck,    6   Ha.  443;   Wood  c 

rard  v  Fraoke'l.  30  Beav.  45'.i;  Trice  v.  Scarth,  2  K.  «fc  J.  33  ;  Webster  f.  Cecil. 

Ley,  11  W.  U.  475;  Harris  v.  Pepperoll,  30  Beav.  04. 

L.  B.  5  Eq.  1,  si//>»-rt,  p.  324.  *  Calvcrley  v.   Williams.   1    Vcs.   Jr. 

'  Stone  t'.  Godfrey.  18  Jur.  166  ;  but  210  ;  Stratford  ».  Bosworth,  2  V.  «t  B. 

sec  S.  C.  on  appea],"5  1).  yi.  it  G.  93.  842.     See  Clowes  f.  Uigjinson,  1  V.  A 

*  M' Alpine  v.  Swift,  1  Ba.  &  Be.  203.  B.  524. 


•150  MisiAKr. 

tlu>  cunt  met  arc  amMi^uous,  so  that  tlic  one  party  may  liavo 
rcasininlily  put  a  dillcrcnt  construction  on  tlic  C(»ntract  from 
what  was  CdUtcmphitctl  hy  the  <ifhcr,'  a  hill  lor  sjiccific 
performance  will  he  dismissed  witliout  costs.  Aud  so  where 
jiarol  evidence  was  admitted  in  opposition  to  specilic  perform- 
ance.' 

If  parol  c\  idciice  to  vai'v  the  contract  is  introduccil  hy 
the  defendant,  tlu'  1)ill  should  l)e  sti-ictly  dismissed  ;  and, 
therefore,  if  tlie  c(»urt  makes  a  decree  at  j)laintitf's  desire  for 
specilic  performance  of  the  contract  according  to  defendant's 
evidence,  tlie  plaintift'  must  pay  costs.'  lUit  inasmuch  as 
jiarol  evidence  to  vary  the  contract  cann(»t  be  admitted  on 
the  ]>art  of  the  i)laintilf  to  a  bill  for  specific  performance,*  a 
bill  for  the  specilic  j)erformance  of  a  contract  witli  parol 
variation,  though  left  out  by  fraud,  was  dismissed,  but  without 
costs.* 


•  Nenp  r.  Al)l)ott,  1  C.  P.  Coop.  temp.  •  Supra,  p.  .^IS. 

t'ott.  382;  liaxL-nduiei'.  Seule,  I'Jlieav.  *  Woolliuii    r.    llcnrn.    7  Ves.    211; 

C13.  Lord  rurtrnaii  v.   Morris.  2  Bro.  C.  C. 

•  Townshend  v.  Stanefrooni,   G  Vc3.  219;  see  L'luwca  ».  lliggLuaon,  1  V.  dt 
328  ;  Garrard  v.  Grinliiii;.  2  S\v.  '2:>0.  13.  62-*. 

'  Fife  I'.  Clinton.  11!  Vi-s.  Mrt;  Mor- 
limer  ».  Urchurd,  2  Vea.  Jr.  24a. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


GENEIUL   INDEX. 


A 

ABATEMENT, 

of  price  for  misdescription,  G5,  G7,  330,  340. 

purchaser  compelled  to  accept,  301,  3G2,  3G3. 
ACCOUNT, 

on  setting  aside  a  sale  as  fraudulent  against  vendor,  344,  345, 

340,  347,  348,  349,  350. 
what  interest  allowed  on  taking,  351. 
on  setting  aside  a  sale  of  shares  as  fraudulent  against  purchaser, 

349,  351. 
no  reconveyance  until,  be  taken,  351. 
of  wilful  default,  in  what  cases  ordered,  348. 
ordered  from  time  of  fding  bill,  if  there  has  been  delay,  348. 

ACQUIESCENCE, 

principle  of,  127,  298, 301. 

founded  on  fraud,  127,  109, 130. 
wiiat  is  necessary  to  constitute,  85, 131,298,  300,  301,  302. 
extent  of  the  principle,  127,  129, 131, 133. 
cases  in  which  the  principle  does  not  apply,  131, 133,  300,  301. 
cases  in  which  the  principle  applies  with  peculiar  force,  302. 
in  expenditure  on  his  land  binds  the  landowner,  120, 127,  129. 
mere  silence  not  sufficient,  128. 
refusal  to  speak,  with  reason  given,  is  not,  128. 
none,  where  both  parties  have  equal  t>pporlunities,  128,  131. 
inferred,  from  small  payment,  131. 
through  mistake  of  law,  132. 
joint  tenants,  134. 
by  recovering  judgment,  299. 
party  bound  only  to  extent  of,  300. 


•JCtO  iM)i:x. 

ACQUIESCENCE— roH/iHiW. 

apj'lios  as  Wlwi't-ii  truslci'  ami  cestui  que  lrusi,'M',i. 
rcproscntativos  of  man  l»(iuiid  by  his,  303. 
rcinaiiulorman  may  bo  bound  by,  303. 

ACTION  AT  LAW, 

against  vendor  for  concealment  and  misrepresentation,  53,  325, 

32G. 
against  stranger  misrepresenting  property,  53,  54, 340. 
against  agent  misrepresenting  property  of  principal,  320. 
both  fraud  and  injury  must  concur,  325. 
fraud  no  bar  to,  unless  there  is  an  oiler  to  rescind,  327 
recoupment  in,  for  fraud,  327. 

no  offer  to  return  when  consideration  is  worthless,  327. 
note  of  third  person  must  be  returned,  327. 
no  return  of  vendee's  own  note,  328. 
time  of  credit  may  be  disregarded,  328. 
fraud  no  defense  to,  on  specialty,  328. 
for  fraud  in  sales  of  land,  328,  329. 

AGENT.     See  Principal  and  Agent. 

principal  bound  by  misrepresentation  of,  11 1, 112, 113,114,115. 

unless  he  be  acting  vltra  vires,  115,  110,  117. 
notice  to,  notice  to  principal,  258,  259,  200. 
for  purchase,  may  not  sell  his  own  estate  to  principal,  175 
for  sale  or  management  cannot  purchase,  174, 175. 
action    at   law   against,   for   misrepresenting   j>roperty    of  prin- 
cipal, 320. 

AGREEMENT.     See  Contract. 

misrepresentation  a  bar  to  specific  performance  of,  358,  359. 
although  made  innocently,  359. 

unless  compensation  can  bo  made,  301,  302,  303. 
mistake  a  l)ar  to  specific  performance  of,  410,  411,  412, 

unless  with  a  variation,  417,  418, 
mistake  in  written,  when  rectified,  418,  421. 
when  not  rectified,  428. 
when  relieved  against,  429,  430. 
parol  evidence  admissilde  to  explain  errors  in,  117,  118. 
not  to  bid  at  auction,  valid,  224. 

fraudulent,  respccling  marriage,  215.  21«>,  217,218,219,220. 
to  secure  infliittict!  over  other  pt'rs<jns,  220,  221,  222. 
among  hcir»  tu  share  equally,  224. 


INDEX.  461 

AGREEMENT— cnnli, nil  J. 

addition  by  parol  to  written,  not  admissiMe  at  law,  410. 
or  on  bulialf  of  plaintill'  in  tciuily,  117. 
when  admissible  as  a  defense  in  equity,  'JOl,  417,  418. 

ALLOWANCE.     See  Account. 

AMBIGUITY, 

of  agreement,  41 1, 412. 

patent,  435,  latent,  435. 

in  what  cases  evidence  admissible  to  explain,  435. 
a  ground  of  defense  in  equity,  3G0,  411,  412. 
for  refusal  of  costs,  450. 
in  wills,  452. 

parol  evidence  when  admissible  to  explain,  452. 

AMBIGUOUS  KECITAL, 
not  notice,  254. 

APPOINTMENT.     See  Power. 

fraud  upon   power   of,   when   relieved   against,  207,  208,  209, 

270,  271,  272. 
when  vitiated  in  ioto  by  fraud,  and  when  in  part,  272. 
defective   execution   of  power   of,   when   relieved   against,  335, 

330,  337,  338,  339,  340,  341. 
relief  in  case  of  illusoi-y,  273. 

ARBITRATOR.     See  Award. 

may  not  purchase  claims  of  parties  for  reference,  102. 
corruption  or  partiality  of,  290. 

ARRANGEMENT.     See  Family  Arrangement. 

ASSIGNEE  OF  BANKRUPT, 

may  not  purchase  bankrupt's  estate,  101. 
except  leave  be  obtained,  101. 

assign:ment, 

of  equitable   interest   in   personal   estate,    notice   of,  to  trustee 

necessary  to  complete  title,  142. 
fraud  in,  277,  278. 
to  a  beggar  not  fraudulent,  277. 
by  debtors   giving   preference  to  creditors,  when  valid  or  not, 

210,  211,  212,  284,  285,  280. 
for  benefit  of  creditors,  when  valid  or  not,  212,  287. 


•lO'J  iNi)i:x. 

ATTESTINC   WITXKSS, 

whether  atlocleJ  with  notice  of  contents  of  deed,  252. 

A1T()KN1:Y.     See  Solicitor  and  Client. 

AUCTION, 

engajroment   bv   parties   not   to   bid   against  each  other  at  an, 

valid,  '2'2l. 
employment  of  puders  or  unJerbidders  at,  225,  220,  227. 
purehase  at,  by  fiduciary  vendor,  voidable,  158. 

AWARD,     See  Arbitrator. 

jurisdiction  over,  288,  289,  290. 

fraud  in,  43,  44,  288,  289,  290,  291. 

excessive,  291. 

misbehavior  of  arbitrators,  290. 

mistake  in,  when  relievablc,  440,  447,  448. 

circumstances  excluding  ecpiity  for  relief  against,  292. 

only  when  apparent  on  the,  447. 

mistake  in  law,  447. 

for  error  in  judgment,  447, 

when  question  of  law  is  submitted,  447. 

doubtful  question  of  law,  448. 

B 

BANKrwUPT, 

estate  of,  may  not  be  bought  by  assignee,  161. 
nor  by  commissioner,  101. 

BANKRUPT  LAWS, 

fraud  upon  the,  219,  220. 

what  constitutes,  281,  282,  283,  284,  285,  280,  287. 

what  is  not,  282,  283,  284. 

givijig  one  creditor  preference  over  another  is,  284.  285, 

280. 
covenant  or  bcjiid  by  a  man  to  pay  moneys  in  cniitiiigeney 

of  bankruptcy  U,  in  general,  a,  2N(»,  2n7. 
settlement  by  a  man  on  himself  until  bankruptcy,  is  a,  280. 
settlement  by  a  third  party  on  a  man    until   bankruptcy,  is 

not  a,  2ts0. 
assignment  of  property  for  benefit  of  treditors,  n«it  a,  287. 


INDEX.  463 

BIDDEll, 

employ moiit  of,  ;it  auction  whon  allowable,  225,  22G,  227. 

employment  of,  at  auction  a  fiauil  at  law,  225. 

in  tax  sales,  224. 

fictitious  bids  by  auctioneer,  220. 

BONA  FIDE  PURCHASER.     See  Purchaser  of  Value  wiinouT 
Notice. 
protected  in  equity,  312,  313,  314. 

BOND, 

marriage  and  place  brokage,  220,  221,  222. 

to  marry  given  secretly,  223. 

for  giving  consent  to  marriage,  fraudulent,  210. 

fraudulent  upon  an  intended  marriage,  210. 

obtained  by  solicitors  from  their  clients,  107. 

reform  of  mistake  in,  425,  420,  427. 

joint,  when  deemed  joint  and  several,  425,  420. 

BROKAGE  BONDS, 

marriage  and  place,  220,  221,  222. 

0 

CANCELLATION 

of  deeds  by  fraud  or  mistake,  270. 

CAUTION, 

mere  want  of,  as  distinguished  from  gross  negligence,  239,  240. 
purchaser  not  bound  to  use  excessive,  239. 

CAVEAT  EMPTOR, 

the  rule  of  the  common  law,  59,  101. 

obtains  in  equity,  02. 
in  case  of  purchase  of  real  estate,  103,  104. 
in  case  of  purchase  of  goods,  104,  105,  100,  107,  108. 
does  not  apply  where  there  is  a  distinct  and  positive  misrepre- 
sentation, 82,  257. 

CESTUI  QUE  TRUST, 

right  of,  to  impeach  purchase  by  trustee,  157,  158,  159,  340,  350. 
may  be  lost  by  acquiescence,  303. 
or  lapse  of  time,  240. 
right  of,  to  impeach  purchase  from  trustee,  157,  158,  349,  350 
purchase  of  trust  estate,  154. 


•Ult  INDEX. 

CKSTri  QIE  TUV^T—rontinunl. 
vuliil  as  to  third  partU's,  154. 
binding  on  trustee,  155. 
option  with,  exclusively,  155. 
by  corporation  in  which  trustee  is  member,  155. 
when  rcruotly  may  be  at  law,  155. 
trustee  cannot  purciiasc  for  himself,  157. 
purchase  by,  157. 

CESTUI  QUE  VIE, 

death  of,  before  date  of  contract,  4'2l),  4W. 

CHANGE 

of  solicitora  not  notice  of  change  of  interest,  254. 

CUAKITY, 

governor  of,  lease  to,  of  the  lands,  invalid,  1G2. 
within  the  rule  as  to  purchasers  without  notice,  313. 
lands,  tenant  of,  also  a  trustee,  1G3. 

CHARTER 

obtained  by  fraud,  355. 

CHEAT, 

goods,  instruments,  &c.,  obtained  by,  as  distinguished  from  goods, 
instruments,  dsc,  obtained  by  fraud,  49,  50. 

CHILD, 

and  parent,  contracts,  gifts,  &c.,  between,  when  valid,  179,  180, 

181,  202. 
prima  facie,  valid,  179. 
defective  execution  of  power  supplied  in  favor  of,  440. 

CHOSES  IN  ACTION, 

assignee  of,  not  assignable  at  law,  cannot  set  up  defense  of  pur- 
chase for  value  without  notice,  iil'Z,  323. 

rule  as  to  notice  of  assignment  of,  docs  not  apply  to  equitjiblo 
interests  in  land,  142. 

CLAIM, 

concealment  of,  may  amount  to  fraud,  i:JO,  I'M. 

CLERICAL  ERROR, 

corrected  by  courts  of  law,  tl(». 

CLIENT  ;\N1)  ATTOIJNKV.     .SVt  ISoucitoii  and  ("i.ii;st. 


INDEX.  465 

COLLUSIOxN,  42,  190. 

betwooii  a  coiiipany  and  ii  creditor  lo  enforce  his  debt  against  a 
Iiarticular  sluircholdcr,  278. 

COMMENDATION, 

of  property  by  vendor  allowable,  82,  83,  84,  8"),  80,  87. 

COMMISSIONEIIS 

of  bankrupts  may  not  buy  l)anUrupt's  estate,  101. 

COMMITTEE 

of  lunatic  may  not  purchase  or  rent  the  lunatic's  estate,  101,  102. 

COMPANIES, 

misrepresentation  and  concealment  in  prospectuses  of,  110,  111. 

vague  representations  in  prospectuses  of,  80,  87. 

collusion  between  directors  of,  and  a  creditor  to  enforce  his  debt 

against  a  particular  shareholder,  278. 
parties  induced  by  misrepresentation  to  take  shares  in,  when  not 

relieved  from  the  shares,  340,  341. 
fraud  upon,  by  shareholder,  279. 
notice  to  proper  oflicers  of,  notice  to,  202. 
notice  to  directors  of,  not  notice  to,  202. 
notice  to  shareholder  of,  not  notice  to,  202. 

COMPENSATION, 

defects,  &c.,  not  admitting  of,  avoid  contract,  if  undisclosed,  59, 

05,  302. 
conditions  respecting,  304. 

what  matters  do  not  admit  of,  02,  03, 04, 05,  302,  303. 
purchaser  compelled  to  take  defective  estate  with,  301,  302. 
vendor's  or  purchaser's  right  to,  for  dificreuce  in  quantity,  07, 303. 
for  improvements  on  an  estate  on  setting  aside  a  transaction,  347 
allowed  in  respect  of  false  representation  through  mistake,  339, 

340. 
price  for  better  title,  345. 
none,  in  case  of  actual  fraud  on  creditors,  345. 
in  case  of  constructive  fraud,  340. 

COMPOSITION  DEEDS,  214. 

secret  arrangements  by  creditors,  a  fraud  upon,  214,  215. 
under  '*  Bankruptcy  Act,  1801,"  287. 
in  what  cases  a  iVaud  upon  creditors,  287. 
concealment  of  assets  vitiates,  215. 


•1G<»  INDEX. 

COMPROMISKS, 

vitiatrd  I'V  concoaliiiPiil,  I'JI,  \'2'>. 

of  doubtful  ri-xhts,  not  vitiatr.I  by  mistake,  403,  401, -lOr). 
may  be  vitiated  by  mistake  of  faet,-J.'l.". -lUt. 
consideration  for,  404. 
CONCEALM  I:NT.     See  Misrepresentation,  91.  '.».">,  Im;,  l»7, 1)8. 
a  fraud,  if  tliere  be  a  duty  to  diselose,  95,  IJiO. 
as  distinguislied  from  silence,  9S,  99,  100. 
must  be  of  a  material  fact,  94,9.'). 
must  be  in  reference  to  the  transaction,  9.'>. 
immaterial,  if  fact  be  known,  95. 

a  fraud,  if  there  be  artifices  to  mislead,  98,  99,  102,  103, 127. 
of  truth,  after  discovery  of  misrepresentation,  07. 
of  patent  faults,  101. 
of  latent  faults,  101,  102,  103. 
by  vendor  of  ownership  of  property,  88. 
by  purchaser  of  advantages,  &c.,  9G,  97, 98. 
by  purchaser  of  his  insolvency,  107, 108. 
of  recorded  incumbrance,  103. 
when  property  does  not  exist,  104. 
when  property  is  worthless,  104. 
vendee's  knowledge  of  defective  title,  104. 
when  there  is  no  title,  104. 
by  agent,  binding  on  principal,  111,118. 
in  prospectuses  of  companies,  100. 
in  policies  of  marine  assurance,  118,  119. 
life  assurance,  120,  121. 
fire  assurance,  121. 
in  guarantees  and  contracts  of  suretyship,  122, 123. 
in  compromises,  124. 

by  parlies  in  dealings  with  others  toward  whom  they  stand  in 
ft  fiduciary  position,  125,  l.'>0, 151. 

trustee  and  reslui  que  fnisf,  157. 

solicitor  and  client,  KM,  l(i5. 

principal  and  ag«-nt,  172,  17*),  174. 

guardian  and  ward,  17s. 

parent  and  child,  M'.K  1^1 . 

partners,  182. 

parties  generally  coming  within  the  principle,  182, 183. 
of  claim  by  incumbrancer,  130,  131. 
in  fraud  of  marriage,  21<i,  217. 


INDEX.  4(J7 

CONCEA  I.M  i:\'r—contiuucU. 

of  title  with  design  to  inislo;i<l,  1  •,'("»,  IvJT,  lt>s^  i'j;>. 

contract  procured  Iiy,  tiot  ciilorcud  in  r(iuity,a58. 
CONDITION, 

imposed  under  mistake,  453. 

CONFIRMATION, 

of  impoaclialile  transaction,  when  bindiiiir  in  equity,  290,  297. 

concealment  will  vitiate,  2UT. 

marriage  brokagc  bonds  incapable  of,  221. 

implies  knowledge  of  defect,  297. 

must  be  deliberate  act,  297. 

CONSENT, 

necessary  in  contracts,  142,  143. 
what  is  necessary  to  constitute,  143. 
to  marriage,  fraud  in  withholding,  223. 

CONSIDERATION.     See  iNADEQUAcr  of  Consideration. 
may  be  cither  good  or  valuable,  198. 

what  will  constitute  a  valuable,  200,  201,  202,  203,  232,  233. 
marriage  a  valuable,  201,  232. 
unless  there  be  fraud,  201. 
inadequacy  of  not  per  se  a  ground  for  relief,  186,  187,  188,  189. 

or  for  refusing  specific  performance,  180,  304. 

when  a  ground  for  relief,  104,  187,  189. 
false  statement  of,  191,  192. 

may  vitiate  a  deed,  191, 192. 
not  expressed,  may  be  proved,  191,  192,  199. 

CONSTRUCTIVE  NOTICE.     See  Notice. 
what  is,  230,  237,  240. 
as  distijiguished  from  actual  notice,  230, 
limits  of  doctrine  of,  230,  237,  238,  239,  252. 
party  not   fixed  with,  of  instruments  or  facts  which  may  only 

by  possibility  afiect  property,  254,  255. 
may  be  excluded  by  positive  representation,  &:c.,  79,  80,  255 

250,  257, 258. 
only  operates  in  matters  affecting  title,  258. 

CONTRACT.     See  Agreement. 

vitiated  by  absence  of  consent,  143. 
induced  by  fraud  voidalde,  not  void,  48. 
of  lunatic,  idiot,  &c.,  143,  144,  145. 


4GS  iNDr.x. 

CO  N  TK  A  CT—con  lin  urd. 

of  person  ill  a  state  of  mental  inihecilitv,  11"),  \-\i\. 

of  person  in  a  state  of  ijitoxioutioii,  1-17. 

of  infant,  147,  148. 

of  married  woman,  148,  14i>. 

by  a  party  under  «luress  or  imprisonment,  184,  185. 

in  a  state  of  embarrassment,  IDO. 
vitiated  on  the  ground  of  undue  influence,  1  !'.>,   HIJ,  183,  192, 

11»3, 104. 
with  persons  in  a  fiduciary  relation,  1  is,  1  11>. 
marriage  brokage,  not  capable  of  confirmation,  221. 

CONVEYANCE.     See  Fuaudilent  Conveyances. 

vendor    defrauded    remains    owner   in   equity    notwithstanding 

subject  to  repayment  of  moneys  received,  48. 
reformed  in  equity,  418,  4H»,  4'21. 

COPYHOLD, 

surrender  of,  supplied  in  equity,  4.38,  44G. 
purchaser  need  not  take,  instead  of  freehold,  G2,  3G2. 
nor  need  he  take  freehold  instead  of,  302. 

CORPORATION, 

lease  to  member  of,  of  corporate  property  set  aside,  162, 

COSTS, 

sale  to  solicitor  in  discharge  of,  IGG. 

solicitor  may  not  take  security  for  future,  1G7. 

general  rule  in  equity  as  to,  302,  303. 

charges  of  fraud,  if  unsubstantiated,  visited  with,  303. 

unsuccessful  litigant  as  a  general  rule  has  to  pay,  31X).  304.  454, 

455. 
in  equity,  do  nf)t  always  follow  the  event,  301. 
unsuccessfid  litigant  exempted  from  payment  of,  301,  302,  303, 

455,  45G. 
solicitor  made  party  to  a  suit  for  tlie  purpose  of  having,'  co^ts 
paid  by  him,  380,  304,  30."). 
costs  must  be  prayed  for  by  the  bill,  30.'). 
party  abetting   a  fraud  made  parly,  and  ordered  to  pay,  380, 

305. 

COUNSEL, 

rule  in  equity  a.s  to  dealinijs  between  client  and,  171. 
notice  to,  is  notice  to  client,  258,  200. 


INDEX.  4G9 

COVNSEL— continued. 

must  disclose  adverse  retainer.  10.'}. 

cannot  al)and<)ii  client,  10.'}. 

judj^Mncnt  is  only  security  for  what  is  actually  due,  104. 

purchaser  from  client  protected,  107. 

when  acting  fur  two  clients,  109. 

for  defendant,  may  ])urchase,  109. 

COURTS  OF  COMMON  LAW, 

have  jurisdiction  over  fraud,  44,  45. 
remedies  in,  often  defective,  45,  40,  332,  333. 

COURTS  OF  COMPETENT  JURISDICTION, 

assistance  of  courts  of  equity  to  prevent  fraud  upon,  295. 
COVENANTS, 

notice  of  lease  is  notice  of,  243,  244. 

in  lease,  deceptive  statements  respecting,  91,  99,  244. 
COVERTURE, 

rights  of  married  women  in  equity  in  respect  of  separate  property 
notwithstanding,  148. 

no  excuse  for  participation  in  fraud,  149. 

CREDITORS.     See  Fraudulent  Conveyances. 

fraud  upon,  190,  197,  198,  199,  200,  201,  202,  203,  204,  205,  200, 

207,  208,  209,  210,  211,  212,  213,  214,  215. 
when  on  sale  of  chattels  vendor  remains  in  possession,  208, 

209,  210. 
assignment  for  benefit  of,  when  valid  or  not,  212,  287. 
fraudulent  devises  in  fraud  of,  214. 

favored  in  equity  in  cases  of  defective  execution  of  powers,  440. 
preference  of  particular,  210,  212,  284,  285,  280. 
assignment  to  fictitious,  a  fraud  on  the  bankrupt  laws,  287. 
trust  deeds  for,  when  fraudulent,  287. 

CROWN, 

fraud  upon  the,  294,  295,  355. 

D 

DECEIT, 

action  on  the  case  for,  325. 

when  and  against  whom  it  will  lie,  325,  326. 
DECEPTIVE  STATEMENT, 

is  a  fraud,  91,  92,  98,  99,  214. 


470  INDEX. 

DIXMJKE, 

Iraiul  in.  remediable  in  equity,  43,  44,  292,  351,  852,  353. 
purchasers  under,  Uikv  uitli  notice  of  fraud  apparent  on  face  of, 

317. 
of  court  of  equity  ma}  be  ailjusled   to   meet  the  exigencies  of  a 

particular  case,  40. 

DEEDS, 

fraudulent  suppression  and  destruction  of,  275,  270. 

fraudulently  obtained  without  consideration,  187, 

given  in  extreme  intoxication,  147. 

vendor  need  not  state  defects  apparent  on  face  of,  103. 

cancellation  of,  270. 

omission  to  ask  for,  or  to  retain,  its  cfTccts  as  regards  priority, 

140,  141,  142,251. 
notice  of,  as  aflecting  property,  is  notice  of  entire  contents,  241, 

242. 
notice  that  party  holds,  is  notice  of  his  incumbrance,  234,  '27)\. 
attesting  witness  not  alTeeted  with  notice  of  contents  of,  252. 
fraud  in,  proveablc  by  parol  evidence,  389. 

DEFECTS, 

patent  and  latent,  what  arc,  101. 

disclosure  or  concealment  of,  by  vendor,  101,  102,  103. 

in  execution  of  power,  when  supplied  in  equity,  438,  439,  440, 

441,  442,  443,  444. 
in  instruments,  when  supplied  in  ecpiity,  44."),  1 1(>,  447. 
in  estate,  abatement  of  purchase  moneys  in  respect  of,  05,  GO,  07, 
303. 

DEFICIENCY 

in  quantity  of  estate,  compensation  for,  0.'),  (»(>,  07,  303. 

DELAY.     See  Timk. 

in  instituting  a  suit  to  impeach  a  transaction  a  bar  to  relief,  30JJ, 
304,  305,  300,  307,  308,  309,  310,  311,  312. 
especially  in  certain  cases,  30(5,  307. 
even  as  between  trustee  and  cestui  que  trust,  308,  309. 
acquiescence,  as  distinguished  from,  305. 
n'i>ristntJilive8  of  a  nmn  bound  by  his,  312. 
bill  dismissed  on  ground  of,  dismissed  wilhoiil  cosls.  .'I'.M,  155. 

DEPKECIATOKY 

remarks,  «.V:e.,  \>y  purchaser,  their  ellct,  87. 


INDEX.  471 

DESTIU'CTIUN 

of  deeds,  fraudulent,  275,  270, 

DIRECTORS 

of  public  companies,  misrcjircseiitation  by,  110,  111. 

DISCLOSURE.     See  Concealment. 

of  facts,  defects,  «Sic.,  by  vendor,  94,  101,  102,  103. 
of  advantages,  &cc.,  by  purcliasL-r,  i)0. 

DISTRESS, 

rule  of  equity  as  to  transactions  entered  into  by  a  person  in,  184, 
189,  190,  191. 

DOLUS, 

according  to  the  civilians,  73. 

DRUNKARDS, 

acts  and  contracts  of,  relicvable,  where  there  is  fraud,  147. 
where  relief  refused  to,  147. 

DURESS, 

relief  in  cases  of,  184,  185,  189,  190,  193,  194. 

E 

ELECTION, 

what  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  valid,  453. 
relief  against,  made  under  mistake,  453. 

ENCOURAGEMENT 

of  party  in  error  may  amount  to  fraud,  98,  127,  128,  129,  130 
131,401. 

EQUITABLE  ESTATE.     See  Equitable  Interest. 

in  land,  purchaser  of,  acquires  no  priority  by  notice  to  owner  of 
legal  estate,  142. 

EQUITABLE  INTEREST 

in  personal  estate,  purchaser  of,  acquires  priority  by  giving  notice 

to  person  in  possession  of  fund,  142. 
as  between  parties  claiming  a  mere,  he  who  is  prior  in  time  has 
a  better  equity,  321,  322. 
defense  of  purchase  for  value  without  notice  has  no  place, 

321,  322,  323. 
the  negligence  of  one  may  give  the  ether  a  better  equity,  141. 
the  possession  of  the  deeds  may  give  a  better  equity,  141. 


\7'2  IKDEX. 

KQIITAIUJO  TITLE 

i>(  puii-liascr  witlioiit   iidticc  protrrlt'd   ]>y  tlic  l.'irnl  estate,  312, 

.•n:i,  :ni.  am,  :5i('.. 

more,  iiostpoiud  (o  prior  oqiiitips,  IJ'Jl,  .*50'J,  '.\'SA. 
with  possession  oj'  (lee<ls  and   the  ownership  of  the  legal  estate, 
priorities  between,  1  in.  Ml. 

EQUITIKS. 

as  between  innooent  parties  defiandcd,  I.'JN,  l."!;i,  1  |(t,  Ml. 
as  between  mere,  purehasc  for  value  without  notice  has  no  place, 
321,  322,  323. 

EQUIVOCAL 

terms  of  agreement  a  ground  for  refusing  costs,  456. 

ERROPw.     See  Mistake. 

clerical,  in  agreement,  corrected  by  courts  of  law,  416. 

ESTATE  TAIL, 

barred  by  fraud,  remedy  of  remainderman,  372. 

EVIDENCE.     See  Pkoof. 

rules  of,  same  in  equity  as  ct  law,  384. 
to  prove  fraud,  3S4,  3vS5. 

parol,  where  admissible  to  prove  consideration  in  a  deed,  191, 
192. 

of  variation  in   or  addition  to  agreement  admissible  in 
defense  to  a  suit    for  epocific  j)crforniancc,  303,  304, 
417. 
admissible  on  application  to  rectify  or  reseiiul  an  instru- 
ment on  the  ground  of  mistake,  410,  423. 
when  admissible  to  explain  an  ambi;,'uity  in  an  agreement, 

435. 
when  admissible  to  explain  a  will,  4.')1,  4r)2. 
of  one  witness  cannot  prevail  against  a  denial   by  the  answer, 
389. 
EXECUTION, 

defective  of  power,  when   relieved  against  in   equity,    1 10,  441, 
442,  443. 

EXECUTOR.     .SVr  FiniTiAKv  Relation. 

rule  in  equity  as  to,  dealing   in   respect  of  the   testator's  estate, 

101. 
may  file  a  bill  to  have  a,  transaction,  fraudubnt  as  against  his 

testator,  set  aside,  372. 


i5ni:A.  473 

exim;(Taxcy, 

I'laiKl  ill  rcspctl  of  salr  of,  In7,  ii,  *J'-24. 

EXl'i;.\l)l'll  KIO 

ill  iniiuovoincnts,  allowed  to  a  purcliasor   in   a(<-i)iint,  on  rcscii:f]- 

iiig  a  transaction,  345,  34(5,  347. 
InircliastT  wlic'M  protected  in  equity  aLraiii^t  jferson  encoura;^in^', 

1-27,  128,  UU,  130,  131. 
when  u  part-perforniaiicc  in  ccpiity,  130. 

EXPEXSKS, 

allowed  to  party  coin]ilaiirnii:,  on  transaction  heiiig  set  aside  for 
fraud,  il'iO. 

F 

FALSE  REPRESENTATION.     See  Misrepresentation. 

FALSE  STATEMENT, 

of  consideration,  101,  192. 

FAMILY  ARRANGEMENT, 

rule  of  equity  as  to  validity  of,  180,  181,  182,  271. 
valid  in  equity  notwithstanding  mistake  of  parties,  434. 

FATHER 

and  son,  rule  in  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  179,  180,  181. 

FAULTS, 

sale  with  all,  102,  103. 

FELONY, 

goods  obtained  by,  as  distinguished  from  goods  obtained  by 
fraud,  49. 

FEME  COVERT, 

may  dispose  of  separate  property,  148,  149. 
bound  by  fraudulent  representations,  148. 
not  liable  for  fraud,  149. 

representing  herself  to  be  single,  149. 
no  action  against  husband  and  wife  for  fraud,  149. 
acquiescence  in  husband's  conduct,  149. 
defective  execution  of  power  aided  in  favor  of,  370. 
FIDUCIARY  RELATION, 

r-jle  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between  parties  standing  in  a  posi- 
tion to  each  other  of,  148,  149,  l.')0,  151,  1.52.  1.53.  154,  15r), 
150,  1.57.  101.  102.  182.  183. 


•174  iNin:\. 

FinrriAiiY  iiklation— r'';^^/<»m/. 

|»roof  uf  I'linicss  of  tr  iiisat'lioii  rests  on  juirty  fiHiiij  tlif  position 

of,  ir)i,:}sG. 

limitation  of  g«Micral    rule   as   to   deaHn^s  botwtiMi    j>:ir;iis  in  a, 

152. 
uflor  termination  of,  jiarlics  may  deal  with  oaeh  otiier,  l."»'J,  ItlT, 

108,  170. 
rule  of  equity  as  to  dcalin£»s  lietweon  parties  in  a,  may  continue 
al\er  cessation  of,  153. 
ajiplies   to   third   jicrsons   who   make  tliemselves  parties  to 

such  dealings,  151,  170. 
may  apply,  even  though  no  definite  relation  subsist  between 
the  parties,  183. 
on  what  terms  a  transaction  between  persons  standing  in  a,  is  set 
aside,  3 1(\  350. 

FINE 

obtained  by  fraud,  relieved  against,  353,  354. 

roRFEixrrj-; 

fraud  on  tlie  law  of,  280,  281. 
FORGED  IXSTRU.MENT, 

purchaser  under,  yet  protected  by  getting  in  legal  estate,  314, 

315. 
legal  estate  cannot  pass  under  a,  50,  51,  ."1 5. 

FIi-\UD.       See    CoNCEALME.NT MiSKEPHESENTATION. 

what  is,  41,  42. 

moral,  as  distinguished  from  legal,  57. 

concurrent  jurisdiction  of  law  and  ecjuity  over,  M,  45. 

always  cognizable  in  equity,  43,  44. 

except  fraud  in  obtaining  a  will,  44. 
not  punishable  in  equity  as  a' crime,  43. 
classification  of  forms  of,  -13. 

as  regarded  by  a  court  of  equity,  as  distinguished  from,  as  re- 
garded by  courts  of  law,  45. 
equity  may  entertain  jurisdiction  over  notwithstanding  remedy 

at  law,  40,  47,  4s. 
transaction  tainted  by,  voidable  only,  not  void,  4s,  l'.». 

not  voidable,  if  right  of  others  intervene,  4'.>. 
goods,  instruments,  «Scc.,  obtained  through  a  trick  or  cheat,  ns 

distinu'uished  from  goods,  instruments,  i^:c.,  obtained  through, 

4!>,  50. 
original  viee  eoniinues  to  taint  a  Iransacliou  lounded  Ujton,  51. 
no  la^isu  of  time  will  screen,  51. 


iNi)i:x.  475 

FIIAUD — continued. 

words  more  or  loss,  05.  , 

will  not  cover  fraud,  ((."). 
iiiij)ort  of,  <35. 
(jiialify  rcprescntutiidi,  00. 
must  be  clearly  proved,  JiSJl. 
ontis 2>rohandi  rests  on  party  allei^ing,  383. 

will    be   presiimcd,   where  the  parties  are    on  unequal   footing, 
143,  380. 
uidess  party  upholding  the  transaction  can  prove  the  fair- 
ness of  it,  380,  387. 
evidence  of,  384,  385,  388,  389. 
must  bo  pleaded,  305,  300,  307. 
bill  will  lie  for  recovery  of  moneys  obtained  by,  46,  47,  48,  367, 

308,  309. 
who   may   sue   to   set  aside   a   transaction   on   the  ground  of, 
370,  371,  372,  373,  374. 
particcps  crlminis,  373,  374,  375,  370,  377,  378,  379. 
who  may  be  made  defendants  to  a  suit  to  set  aside  a  transaction, 

on  ground  of,  379,  380,  381,  382. 
transaction  impeachable  on   the   ground  of,  may  become  uuia>- 
peachable  by  confirmation,  290,  297. 
by  acquiescence,  298,  299,  300,  301,  302. 
by  lapse  of  time   or   delay  in  instituting  a  suit,  303,  304, 
305,  306,  307,  308,  309,  310,  311.  • 
of  agent,  principal  bound  by,  111,  112,  113. 
of  one  member  of  a  firm  alTects  co-partner,  114,  351. 
infancy  or  coverture  no  excuse  for,  147,  148,  149. 
by  vendor,  incumbrancer  encouraging,  &c.,  postponed  in  equity, 

130,  131. 
gross  negligence  may  be  treated  as  equivalent  to,  137,  140,  240. 
mere  suspicion  of,  does  not  aftcct  a  purchaser,  239,  254,  255. 
of  his  own  professional  adviser,  whether  purchaser  has  implied 

notice  of,  201 . 
how  purchaser   guilty   of,   must  account,  if  sale  set  aside,  345, 

346. 
groundless  imputation  of,  its  effect  on  costs,  403. 
a  ground  for  setting  aside  a  sale  by  the  court,  353. 
in  cases  of  idiots,  lunatics,  &cc.,  143,  141,  145,  140. 
in  cases  of  drunkards,  147. 

married  women,  148,  149. 


47G  i.NH!:\. 

FliAr  D— on  till  uetJ. 

infants,  117. 

limine  infliuMicc,  ls:{,  ls|.  Is.").  l'.»j 
duivss  IS  I,  l!S:>. 

iiiadoquacy  of  f<»nsiiltM-ati<»ii,  Isd.  187. 
suppression  and  destruction  of  deeds,  *-J7.'>,  'J7G. 
tlu»  prevention  of  acts  to    ha  done  for  tin-  liencfjt  of 
third  persons,  27:i,  '^74,  275. 
scttinf'  up  an  instrument  obtained  for  mie  purpose  for  an- 
other purpose,  270. 
by  and  upon  companies,  278, 279. 
upon  the  mortmain  laws,  279. 
in  assignments,  bv  assignees,  tVc,  277. 
in  the  law  of  forfeiture,  280. 
upon  the  bankrupt  laws,  281,  288. 
in  awards,  288,  292. 
upon  particular  statutes,  288. 
in  judgments  an.l  decrees,  292,  293, 294. 
upon  the  crown,  294.  « 

upon  the  legislature,  295. 
upon  other  courts,  295. 
upon  jiowcrs,  207-27-3. 
u[>on  creditors,  190-215. 
upon  marriage  articles,  215,  216. 
upon  the  marital  rights,  217-220. 
in  respect  of  bond  to  marry,  22o. 
in  withholding  consent  to  marriage,  223. 
in  respect  of  expectancies,  223,  224. 
in  respect  of  sales  by  auction,  224,  225. 

Voluntary  conveyances  in,  of  subsequent  purchasers,  227-2.33. 
when  persons  jiurcliasc  with  notice  of  adverse  title,  233-260. 
iu  marriage  and  plac(^  brokage  contracts,  220.  221,  222. 
arisiii"  froua  peculiar  liduciary  relations,  147,1^3. 

between  trustee  and  cestui  que  trust,  147-183. 

bi'tween  Holicilnr  ami  client,  103-172. 

between  principal  and  agent,  172-177. 

between  puardiaii  anil   ward,  177-179. 

between  parent  and  diild,  12S.  131,  179-1S-2. 

between  partners,  182. 

hctweon  principal  and  surely.   1^2. 

in  other  sprcial  c  ises.  151.  IC.l.  l<p-J.  171.  Js2. 


INDKX.  477 

Fj;  A I )  I )  i;  L  \:\T  ( ( >  .\  v  i:  v  a  n  (  'Es, 

I'olicf,  of  crotlitdis  iigainst,  li)(),  108. 

what  witliiii  statute  of  \'i  Elizahotli,  198. 

when  one  iiidcbtcd  fonvcys  to  his  wife  aiiJ  childroii,  200, 201, 
202,  20:J,  204,  20'). 

whether   indfbtineiit  per  se  evidence  of  fraud,  205,  20G.  ^ 

when  subsequent  creditors  let  in,-  200,  207. 

must  be  of  property  applicable  to  discharge  of  debts,  208. 

when  made  to  defeat  creditors,  void,  tlioii<;h  fir  u  valuaU^t  con- 
sideration, 198,  208. 

when  vendor  of  chattel  property  remains  in  possession  after  the 
sale,  208,  200,  210. 

assignments  giving  prcferonct',  whi-n  valid,  200,  210,211,212. 

voluntary  conveyance  of  real  estate  in  regard  to  subscc^uent 
purchasers,  227-2'j3. 

to  defeat  an  attachment,  190. 

of  articles  consumable  in  their  use,  196. 

in  name  of  third  person,  197. 

reconveyance  by  grantee,  197. 

void  in  to  to,  107, 

judgment  is  lien  on,  107. 

dower  in,  197. 

valid  against  third  parties,  108.  - 

not  made  valid  by  sul)sequent  consideration,  200. 

grantee  must  concur  in,  201. 

voluntary,  governed  by  statute  27  Elizabeth,  227. 

such  conveyances  good  as  between  the  parties,  230. 

the  statute  does  not  extend  to  personal  estate,  233. 

between  volunteers  equity  will  not  interfere,  233. 

defeated  by  a  sale,  though  the  purchaser  takes  with  notice,  229.  '— 

rule  in  America,  227. 

does  not  apply  to  State,  228. 

of  equitable  interest,  228. 

valid  against  purehascr  with  notice,  228. 

record  is  notice,  228. 

judicial  sale,  230. 

to  defraud  creditors,  231.— 

applies  to  personal  property,  233. 

FRAUDULENT  INTENT, 
what  constitutes,  54,  02. 
in  particular  cases  impuic.l,  55,  50,  57. 


478  iNDr.x. 

nol  iini>iitcJ  if  a  man  inakt-s  a  n'presciilutioii  which  ho  honestly 
believos  to  In-  iiuf,  «i(».  (il. 

FRArniLKNT  IMIKFKKKNCi:, 
what  is,  'ij<I,  '^8."). 
«  what  is  necessary  to  constitute,  285,  2S0. 


G 

GIFT, 

by  client  to  solicitor  is  not  varul,  170. 
by  principal  to  agent,  17(>. 
by  chilJ  to  parent,  180. 

mere  trifling,  may  be  valiil,  though  a  largo  one  vrouKl  be  invalid, 
1.V2. 

Govi:i:.\uii 

of  charity  cannot  buy  or  take  a  louse  of  charity  laud,  1G2. 

GUARANTEE 

avoided  by  non-disclosure  or  concealment  of  material  facts,  Vi'2, 
123,  124. 

GUARDIAN  AND  WAIM), 

rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  177. 

not  limited  to  cases  where  the  relation  actually  exists  at  the 
time,  177,  178. 
after  complete  termination  of  relation  of,  parties  may  deal,  178. 
cases  coming  within  the  rule  of  equity  with  respect  to  dealings 
between,  178,  170. 


11 

HEIR 

of  party  defrauded  may  Hlf  a  bill  for  n  lief,  ;i71. 

of  voluntary  settler  faiinot  difiMl  the  sotth-nu-nt  by  a  sale,  220. 

agreement  between  c-xpec-taiiL  hulrs  to  shan-  e(|ually  is  valid, 22 1. 

HUSBAND, 

defective  execution  r>f  a  powi-r  by  wife  in  favor  ol,  nol  aided   ui 
equity,  440. 


iM)i:x.  J7;j 

I 

IDIOTS.     See  Lunatic. 

IG\()i:.\N("I':.     ,S'fc  Mistake. 

willful,  tantamount  to  actual  knowledge,  237. 
of  law,  398. 

moneys  paid  in,  402. 
of  fact,  406. 

ILLEGAL 

purpose  concealed  from  vendor,  docs  not  avoid  conveyance,  46. 
party  may  avoid  his  deed  l)y  showing  that  it  was  exe- 
cuted for  an,  388. 

ILLUSORY  APPOINTMENT,  273. 

IMBECILITY, 

mental,  relief  in  cases  of,  143,  144,  145,  146. 

where  there  is  duress  or  undue  influence,  187,  188,  189,  190. 

IMPRISONMENT, 

contract  by  party  under,  184,  185. 

IMPROVEMENTS, 

expenditure  in,  allowed  to  a  purchaser  on  setting  aside  a  transao- 

tion,  345,  340,  347. 
refusal  to  execute  promised,  a  defense  in  equity  to  bill  for  specific 

performance,  304. 
by  lessee  on  land  of  lessee  not  allowed,  131,  132,  133. 
purchaser  who  seeks  to  set  aside  a  transaction  on  ground  of  fraud 

should  pray  for,  347. 
false  representation  as  to  amount  spent  in,  upon  property  may 
amount  to  a  fraud,  88. 

IMPROVIDENCE 

of  transaction  not  a  ground  of  relief,  189,  190. 

INADEQUACY  OF  CONSIDERATION, 
not  in  general  a  ground  for  relief,  180. 

or  for  refusing  specific  performance,  180,  304. 
a  ground  of  relief,  if  grossly  inadequate,  187. 

or  if  the  parties  are  in  a  position  of  fiduciary  relation,  116, 

137,  104,  105,  189. 
or  if  the  one  possesses  an  influence  over  the  o'.lier,  18;>,  190. 


480  INDIIX. 

LNAJ>i:QrA<V  OF  CONSIDIIKATION— ro;W//ii/f,/. 

till  recently  a  promiil  lur  si-ttiiii;  aside  tlu*  sah'  cf  a  reversion. 

187n. 
mav  nniouiil  to  jirool"  of  fraud,  lb7. 
duo  to  fall  of  vendor,  ISO. 
oil  sale  for  taxes,  180. 
sjile  under  judicial  process,  188, 
sale  at  auction,  188. 
when  consideration  is  mere  buhlde,  188. 

INCAPACITY 

to  contract,  renders  a  contract  fraudulent,  1 1'>,  1  1 1,  11.'),  1  It),  117. 

INCUMBRANCES.     See  Notice. 

vendor  must  disclose,  if  not  apparent  on  the  deeds,  1(K{. 
notice  of,  to  purchaser,  before  conveyance,  binds,  318,  :Jli>,  320. 
right  of  purchaser  to  pay  oir,  aller  conveyance,  out  of  unpaitl 

purchase  moneys,  320. 
legal  estate,  when  a  protection  against,  313,  320. 
concealment  of,  by  third  party,  130,  131. 
priority  as  between  eciuitable,  111,  142,  322,  323,  324. 

INFANT, 

general  incapacity  of,  to  contract,  147. 
Vicmnd  by  fraudulent  representations,  147,  148,  382. 
incumbrancer,  fraudulent  concealment  by,  relieved  against,  147, 
148,  382. 

INFLUENCE, 

undue,  transaction  set  aside  on  ground  of,  l83,  Is."),  lie;,  104. 

INJUNCTION, 

remedy  by,  in  cases  of  fraud,  3.')."),  3r)0. 

INQUIIIY, 

purchaser  fraudulently  abstaining  from,  case  of,  237. 

purchaser  negligently  abstaining  from,  fi.xed  with  notice,  237,  238, 

2:J9. 
mere  suspicion  not  cnotigh  to  put  a  man  upon,  238,  254, 

INSANITY.     Src  Li  NATic. 

iNS()LVi:Nr'Y, 

concealment  by  purcha.ser  <.f  his,  ids. 
when  assignee  in,  n)ay  purehase,  100,  1»')1. 
representation  of  solvency,  108. 


INDKX.  481 

INSOLVENCY— ro«//,/«6v/. 

vendor's  know  Iodide  of  his,  108. 
mutual  mislake  as  to  solvency,  101). 
after  committing  an  act  of,  100. 

LNSPECTION 

of  propiTty  by  purchasor,  its  efrcct  on  niislc-cription,  75,  70,  77, 
78,  iC. 

INSUKANCE.     Sve  Policies  of  Insurance. 
INTENTION, 

false  roj)rcseiit:ition  as  to,  not  a  ground  for  relief,  88,  89. 

evidence  of,  adinissible  when   there  has  been  a  mistake  in   the 
expression  of  an  agreement,  414,  41 G,  418. 

of  author  of  power,  no  relief,  so  as  to  defeat,  443. 

of  testator,  when  evidence  admissible  to  explain,  451,  452. 
INTEREST, 

of  vendor  in  property,  purchaser  must  disclose  facts  increasing, 
08. 

in  property,  conveying  party  mistaking,  has  no   remedy,  432, 
433. 

on  moneys  advanced,  allowed  on  setting  aside  a  transaction,  34 1. 

on  improvements,  allowed  to  purchaser  on  setting  aside  a  trans- 
action, 351. 

in  respect  of  costs,  charges  and  expenses,  allowed  to  complaining 
party  on  setting  aside  a  transaction,  351. 

INTOXICATION 

of  party  to  contract,  its  ellect,  147. 


JOINT  CONTRACTS, 

when  held  in  equity  joint  and  several,  425,  420,  427. 

JUDGMENTS, 

fraud  in,  43,  44,  202,  293,  294,  352. 
how  relieved  against,  353. 
registered,  are  notice  only  if  search  be  made,  200. 
purchasers  when  bound  by  notice  of  unregistered,  2G3. 
mistake  in,  440. 


•IS'J  iNin:\. 

JURISDICTiuN, 

of  equity  civcr  frauJ,  not  i-xcliiJcil   by   existcuco  of  rciiudy  at 
law,  jr.,  U). 

L 

LACHES.     See  Delay. 

LATENT, 

dvfccls,  what  arc,  101,  lO'J. 

must  he  diseloseil  hy  vondiu-,  101,  103. 
aiiibigiiity  in  agreenK-iit,  i:],"). 
parol  evidcuce  atlmlssihlt!  to  cxiiliiin,  \']7). 

LAW, 

remodies  at,  in  cases  of  fraud,  lilo,  lilli,  '.V27,  ^2%  nCO.  .^30,  331. 
jurisdiction  of  equity  over   fraud   nut  excluded   by  existence  of 
remedy  at  law,  4.'),  40. 

LEASE, 

notice  of,  wliether  notice  of  all  its  contents,  2VZ,  2l.'>,  *-2 44. 
covenants  in,  need  not  bo  mentioned  on  sale  of,  243. 
there  must,  however,  be  no  misrejiresentation,  *243,  244. 
misdescription  respecting,  when  fatal,  02,  03,  01. 
purchaser  of,  has  what  notice  of  lessee's  title,  250. 

LEASEHOLD, 

described  as  freehold,  variance  is  material,  02,  03,  302. 

LEAVE  AND  LICENSE, 

rule  at  law  as  to,  133,  134,  13.'). 

as  distinguished    from  equitable  doctrine  of  acquiescence, 
133,  134,  135. 

LEGACIES, 

fraud  in  the  prevention  of,  273,  274,  275,  354. 

revocation  of,  under  mistake,  3S3,  384. 

false  reason  given  for,  when  avoiding,  354,  355,  450,  451. 

LECiAL  KSTATE, 

how  far  a  protection   to  pmcliaser,  312,  313,  .">!  1,  .".15,  .'lis.  ;!!<), 

320. 
not  u  protection  where  a  [)urcha.ser  has  omitted  to  iMi|uire  for  the 

title  deeds,  251. 
being  outstanding,  nolica  of,  is  notice  of  the  trusts  on  which  it  is 

held,  24S. 


INDEX.  483 

LEiilSLATLRi:, 

fraud  upon  tlu',  ^'.i.'),  )1W>. 

LESSKE, 

lias  cDiistruotivc,  notice  of  lessor's  title,  240. 

LESSOR, 

notice  of  tenancy  not  notiet^  of  liilt^  of,  t247. 

lessee  or  purchaser  from  lessee  lias  notice  of  title  of,  2  19. 

LICENSE 

to  exercise  a  right  over  the   land  of  another  may  be  countor- 

niandcJ  at  law  by  the  owner  of  the  soil,  135. 
not  so  in  equity,  if  there  has  been  acquiescence  or  encouragement 

to  spend  moneys,  133,  134,  135. 

LIEN, 

notice  of  possession  of  deeds  is  notice  of,  251. 
vendor's  tenancy,  when  not  notice  of,  247. 

LIMITATIONS,  STATUTE  OF, 

equity  acts  upon  analogy  of,  and  follows  as  to  legal  demands, 

304. 
effect  of,  upon  equitable  demands  and  in  cases  of  equitable  titles, 

304. 
delay  for  less  than  time  allowed  by,  may  bar  right  to  relief  in, 

equity,  304,  306. 
not  a  bar  in  cases  of  fraud,  51,  303. 

LUNATIC, 

how  far  incompetent  to  contract,  143, 144, 145,  146. 
committee  of,  may  not  purchase  lunatic's  estate,  IGl. 

M 

MARITAL  RIGHTS, 

of  husband,  frau.l  upon  the,  217,  218,  219,  220. 

settlement  or  conveyance  of  property  during  treaty  of  marriage 

without  notice  to  the  intended  husband,  217,  218,  219. 
acquiescence  by  husband  in,  220. 

MARRIAGE.     See  Settlemext. 

a  sufficient  consideration  for  a  settlement,  200,  201,  232. 
setttlement  before,  may  be  fraudulent  and  void,  200,  201. 

whether  valid  in  favor  of  collatL-rals.  232.  2.'53. 
is  not  a  part  performance  of  parol  agreement,  137. 


•1st  iM)i:x. 

fraud  in  witliholdin^  ronscut  to.  '223. 
mistake  in  si'ltlotnont  of,  IJI.  IJ."). 

MA1MIIA(^.I-:  AlITK'IJvS, 

frau.l  upon,  2ir»,  21(*.,  217. 

MAKKIACl-:  r.KoKACl-:  IlnXDS,  220,  221,222. 
incapable  of  confirmation,  221. 

MAKinKD  WOMAN, 

liuw  far  incaj»alilo  to  sell  or  liuy,  14S,  149. 
acting  fraudulently  is  liomi'l,  1  !'.>. 

l.ound  to,  223. 

MEDICAL  MAN, 

as  to  purchases  by,  and  gifts  to,  from  patient,  193. 

MISAPPKEIIENSION, 

agreement  entered  into  under,  when  not  enforced,  411. 

MISDESCRIPTION.     Sec  Misrepresentation. 
pondition  respecting,  82,  304. 

destroys  eni'ct  of  what  would  otherwise  be  notice,  70,  80,  255. 
what  so  material  as  to  avoid  a  contract,  02,  03,  04,  03. 
specific  performance  decreed  notwithstanding,  where  compensa- 
tion can  be  made,  301,  302. 

MISREPRESENTATION.     See  Concealment. 
what  constitutes,  53,  54,  01,  92. 
must  be  of  something  material,  73. 
must  be  relied  on,  73,  75,  70,  77,  78,  70. 
must  be  a  proximate  c;iuse  of  a  transaction,  74. 
must  be  in  respect  of  a  fact,  82,  83,  8t,  85,  80. 
allegation  of,  may  be  met  by  proof  of  knowledge,  78,  79. 
need  not  bo  in  express  terms,  90,  01,  02. 
may  be  by  acts  or  artifices  to  mislead,  02,  0!^,  00,  102. 
must  be  made  with  the  intent  to  deceive,  02,  03. 
must  be  attended  with  damage,  93. 
aa  to  mere  matter  of  ftpinion,  82,  83,  84,  85,  8r>. 
as  to  value,  84,  85,  87,  .3(>4. 
as  distinguished  from  mere  exaggeration,  8(». 
as  to  matter  of  <ipinion  mado  by  pnreliaser  to  vendor,  87. 
as  to  cost,  &ic.,  of  property,  88. 


INDKX.  4ii.> 

]\iisj:LiM:i:sE-NrATiu.N— co,<//„Ma/. 

as  to  intention,  88,  80. 

us  to  nmltor  of  iaw,  '.»(),  -100. 

made  iiiiHR-oiilly  or  liy  mistako,  57,  CS.  . 

not  in  frrncral  a  gronml  Jor  an  action  at  law,  '.',-2'). 

in  what  cases  it  vitiates  a  contract,  57-Go. 

in  what  cases  it  docs  not  vitiat(!  a  contract,  '>;).  ()i). 

by  party  who  onght  to  know  the  trnth,  57,  Ol). 

if  made  by  party  who  was  not  under  a  duty  to  i<now  the  truth, 

must  be  disclosed  by  him,  as  soon  as  ho  discovers  the  truth, 

G7,  08. 
destroys  ellect  of  what  would  otherwise   be   noticr-,  7!>,  SO,  I'Jo, 

255. 
caveat  emptor  docs  not  apply  when  there  is  a  ]iositivc,  82. 
in  prospectuses  of  companies,  110,  IIG,  117,  118. 
by  agents, binding  on  principal,  111,  112, 113, 114,  115,  1  ir,.  117. 
by  infant  binds  him  in  equity,  147. 
extent  of  application  in  equity  of  doctrine  of   law  as  to,   l-.iO, 

127,  135. 
negligence  may  bj  tantamount  to,  137. 
action  at  law  fur  damages  lies  for,  53,  325,  320,  340. 
not  so,  liowovcr,  if  made  innocenily,  325. 

and  in  the  absence  of  a  duty  to  know  the  truth,  00 
rescission  of  contract  at  law  on  the  ground  of,   325,  320,  327, 

328,  320,  330. 
rescission  of  contract  or  conveyance  in  equity  on  the  ground  of, 

333,  334,  335, 340. 

unless  compensation  can  be  made,  330,  340. 
no  rescission  of  contract  either  at  law  or  in  equity  if  party  who 

made  the,  is  a  stranger  to  the  contract,  331,  340,  341. 
as  a  ground  of  defense  to  a  bill  for  specific  performance,  357, 

358,  350,  301,  304,  305. 
specific  performance   notwithstanding,  if  compensation    can  be 

made,  301,302,  303. 
costs  in  cases  of,  300,  301,  302,303. 

MISTAKE, 

what  is,  300. 

in  matter  of  law,  300,  307,  308,  300, 400,  401. 

when  a  ground  of  relief  in  equity,  308,  300,  400,  401. 
payment  of  moneys  under,  401,402,403. 


4S()  iM)i:x. 

M  IS  TA  K  K — ran  tinned. 

ii<»t  ;i  ground  for  sotting  nslilo  ft  compromise,  403,  404. 
selection  of  wrong  instrunieiit,  .'{t>7. 
decision  bubsotiucnlly  ovcrruhMl,  ,'}i)7. 
misconstruction  of  statute,  3'J7. 
of  attornt'V,  .'l!>7. 
when  relief  granted,  .'}•.•'.). 
misconstruction  of  instrument,  400. 
ignorance  of  right,  400. 
in  matter  of  fact,  40"),  400. 

of  law  and    of  fact,  opinion    of  Savigny  as  to  distinction  be- 
tween, 40.'),  400. 
as  distinguislieil  tVom  fraud,  KXt.  107. 
as  distinguished  from  negligence,  407,  408. 
principles  on  which  relief  is  granted  against,  408,  4^0,  437. 
must  be  material,  40S. 

may  be  of  one  party  not  known  to  the  other,  400,  400,  410. 
specific    performance    not  enforced  against  party  acting  under, 

410,411,412. 
of  one  party  known  to  the  other,  400,  412,  41.'1,  414. 
caused  by  misrepresentation,  57,  !>0,  413,  414. 
not  caused  by  misrepresentation,  414,  41.'). 
consisting  in  expression  of  agreement,  411. 
in  some  matter  in<lucing  the  ag»-ccment,41 1,  115. 
common  to  both  jiartics  to  agreement,  41 G. 
in  expression  of  agreement,  41G. 

no  specific  performance,  except  on  terms,  417. 
rectification  of,  418,  419,  420,  421,  422,  423,  424, 

425, 420, 427. 
cases  in  which  there  can  be  no  rectification  of,  357, 
428,  420. 
in  matters  inducing  the  agreement,  420, 430,  431. 

in  what  cases  not  a  ground  of  relief,  431,  432,  433. 
as  to  matters  to  which  the  agreement  is  to  bo  applied,  434, 
435. 
in  marriage  settlement,  where  the  fnial  instrument  and  prelim- 
inary contract  diller,  424,  425. 
of  fact,  recovery  of  moneys  j)aid  under,  415. 

in  compromises  and  family  arrangements,  433.  43  1. 
parol  ovidcncc  admissible  to  prove,  412.  110.  117.  lis,  i-j;}^  i:;.'). 


iNDiiX.  487 

W ISTA  K  I"^ — con  tin  itcil. 

Icriiis  iiii|i()sc(|   oil  scUiii;;  aside  a  traiisaclioii  on  iIk^  ground  of, 
4.'](>,  UJT,  4.'W. 

wlieu  money  is  spent  on  ancjlhcr's  estate  tliroiigh  mistake  of  title, 
127. 

election  under,  45.*}. 

in  the  execution  of  powers,  when  aiilrd   in  ((juity,  438,  4.'31>,  440, 
441,442,  44.'l,  444. 

when  parties  have  omitted  acts  necessary  to  the  validity  of  instru- 
ments, 445,  440. 

when  an  instrument  is  drawn  untechnicaliy,  447. 

in  judgments,  4 1(5. 

cancellation  of  deed  by,  270. 

in  awards,  447,  448. 

in  wills,  when  rectified,  448,  449,  450,  451. 

when  i>arol  evidence  admissible  to  explain,  451,  452. 

in  legacies,  449,  450. 

revocation  of  legacies  under,  453. 

condition  imposed  by  will  under,  453. 

when  a  false  reason  is  given  for  a  legacy,  450,  451. 

efiect  of,  in  costs,  454,  455,  450. 

MOiNEYS, 

bill  to  recover,  obtained  by  fraud,  40,  308. 

paid  under  mistake  of  fact  when  recoverable,  415. 

of  law  whether  recoverable,  401,  402,  403. 
arising  from  illegal  contract,  assertion  of  title  to,  379. 

":MOr.E  OR  LESS,-' 

fiuantity  of  land  stated  to  be,  05,  GO,  07,  303. 

MORTGAGEE, 

puisne,  may  buy  the  mortgaged  property  from  a  prior,  under 

his  power  of  sale,  102. 
may  buy  from  mortgagor,  102. 

legal,  not  inquiring  for  or  giving  up  the  title  deeds,  how  affected 
»      in  equity,  140,  141. 
equitable,  not  inquiring  for  or  giving  up  the  title  deeds,  how 

affected  in  equity,  1-12. 

MORTMAIN  LAWS, 

fraud  upon  the,  279,  280. 


N 

Jiiav  bo  taiitiiinoiinl  to  inisri-prosonlaliDii,  lo7. 
principle  of  law  as  to,  1^7,  IJJS. 

nj>j>rK'atioii  of,  as  hftwofii  two  iiinoci'iit  partii-s  wIim  have 

boon  dofraudod  by  a  third,  l.'JS,  i;j;>. 
application  of,  as  between  owner  of  it^al  islatu  and  a  party 

having  an  equitable  elaini,  140,  141,  142. 
application   of,  as   between   parties  having  mere   etjuitable 

interests  in  real  estate,  111. 
in  what  cases  does  not  apjdy,  1  H  . 
distinction  between  gross  and  mere,  lli>,  ill.  •j;51>,  !240. 

as  understood  in  the  Konian  law,  140  n. 
as  distinguished  from  mere  want  of  cautic)ii,  2'.i'.\  XJIO. 
gross,  treated  as  notice,  240. 

omission  by  incumbrancer  to  give  notice  of  claim  is,  in  case  of 
personal  estate,  14'2. 

sccus  in  case  of  equitable  interests  in  real  estate,  142. 
omission  to  UK^uire  for  title  deeds  is  gross,  141,  2.')!. 
not  getting  or  giving  iqi  title  deeds,  when  gross,  141,  231. 

NOTICE.     See  Constructive  Notice. 
doctrine  of,  234,  235. 

founded  on  fraud,  233,  234, 
actual,  235. 
constructive,  230. 

gross  negligencL'  may  be  treated  as,  239,  240. 
mere  want  of  caution  not  tantamount  to,  239. 
that  property  is  incumbered,  cVc ,  is  notice  of  incumbrances,  &c., 

239,241. 
of  deed  is  notice  of  contents  241,  242. 
of  lease  is  notice  of  covenants,  242,  243,  214. 
that  a  man  is  in  posscs.sii^n  of  land  is  notice  of  all  equiliis  therein, 

244,  245,  248. 
of  tenancy  is  notice  of  etpiities  of  tenant,  215,  210,  247.  , 

of  past  tenancy  not  notice  of  equities  of  tenant,  247. 
of  tenancy  not  notice  «>f  lessor's  title,  247. 
y)ers<»n  held  to  liav*',  of  facts  which  he  ought  to  have  known,  2  IS, 

249,250,  251. 
that  title  deeds  are  in  possession  of  anctther  is  notice  of  his  *laim, 

2:14,251. 


INDEX.  489 

rsOTlCK—confii.ucl. 

|ioss('.ssl()ii  of  deeds  by  solieitor  of  vendor  is  not,  of  interest  of 

solicitor  therein,  250,  2r>l. 
witness  to  deed  not  Itouiid  by,  of  contents  of  deed,  252. 
party  specially  referred  to  another  for  iiiforniation  fixeil  with,  252, 
mere   statement  tiiat   information   may  be   had   at   a  particular 

phnco  not,  252. 
that  property  is  cliargcd  is  notice  as  to  the  nature  of  the  charge, 

25.*},  254. 
doctrine  as  to,  docs  not  extend  to  instruments  or  circumstances 

whicli  may  only  by  possibility  affect  properly,  254. 
may  be  excluded  by  positive  representation,  70,  SO,  247,  255. 

250,  257. 
misrepresentation  may  avoid  effect  of  what  would  be,  70,  80,  255, 

250,  257,  258. 
registration  of  assurance  is  not,  unless  search  be  made,  203,  204, 

205. 
registration  witii,  of  unregistered  assurance,  205. 
of  unregistered  judgment,  200. 
record  of  deed  is,  204. 

not  required  to  bo  recorded  is  not,  204. 
deficient  in  statutory  requirement,  204. 
only  to  those  claiming  under  grantor,  204. 
when  left  with  clerk,  204. 
incorrect  index,  204. 
in  wrong  name,  204. 

varianc«;  between  copy  and  original,  205. 
renewals,  205. 
judgment  not,  unless  search  be  made,  200. 
purchaser  with,  judgments  do  not  affect,  200. 
immaterial  as  between  judgment  creditors,  200. 
to  solicitor  or  agent  is  notice  to  client  or  principal,  258,  259,  200. 
notwithstanding  that  solicitor  be  committing  a  fraud  niinn 
client,  201. 
to  partner  is  notice  to  other  partners,  262. 
to  director  of  company  not  notice  to  company,  202. 
to  shareholder  of  company  not  notice  to  company,  2(32. 
to  j>roper  ollicer  of  company  notice  to  company,  202. 
shareholder  of  company  not  necessarily  fixed  with,  of  contents  of 

memorandum  of  association  of  company,  201,  202. 
doctrine  of,  applies  although  no  solicitor  be  employed,  237. 


tl»'t  INDEX. 

Si)'Vlr]l—Coiitinut(l. 

gives  priority  as   lu>t\vciii    f<|uil;il>Ii;    iiiciiinlM-.inccrs   in   personal 

estate,  1  l,V 
(loos  not  givo  [iriority  as  IjitwiH-ii  iMHiilahle  iiitcnsls  in  lan.l,  112, 

purch;isor  for  value  without,  iuivini,'   legal  estate,  protected  in 

equity,  31t2,  313,  310. 
purchaser  for  value  with,  from  purchaser  without,  protecleJ,  31,">, 

31 G. 
purchaser  having,  cannot  defeat  it  by  gettini,'  in  thr  legal  estate, 

310. 
of  another  having  better  right  to  call  for  legal  estate  is  notice  of 

all  equities,  315, 
purchaser  willi  notice  of  facts  which  ought   to   have  jiut  him  on 

enquiry  cannot  claim  as  a  purchaser  without,  310,  317. 
before  payment  of  purchase  money,  thougli  it   lie  secured,  and 

conveyance  executed,  is  suflicient,  318,  310,  320. 
bcf:)re  conveyance,  but  after  payment  of  purchase  moneys,  320. 
purchasers  under  a  decree  afTectod  with,  317,  318. 
purchase  for  value  without,  available  against  a  legal  title,  320, 

321. 
purchase  for  value  without,  no  defense  as  between  persons  claim- 
ing mere  equities,  321,  322. 
injunction  notwithstanding  defense  of  purchase  for  value  without, 

321. 
defense  of  purchase  for  value  without,  cannot  be  admitted,  unless 

it  is  pleaded,  300. 

purchase  for  value  with,  not   bound  by  a  voluntary  settlement, 
007    000    o.»fi 

matters  of  which  purchaser  has,  vendor  need  nut  state,  101. 

o 

OCCUPATION, 

notice  of,  notice  of  equities  of  occupier,  211,  2ir>,  218. 

alitcr  as  respects  a  past  oceiii>ation,  2  17. 
rent  debited  in  account  to  a  purchaser  on  rescinding  j)urchasc  of 

real  estate,  'MTi. 
not  e<juivalent  to  recording,  21.'). 
merely  an  inference,  2  l.'». 
under  recorded  deed,  2  10. 


INDEX.  Ul 

OCCUPATION— Cb/t/m,W. 

tcrniinated  l)cf«>i-e  puicli;isr>,  t310. 

joint,  21<), 

by  mortgagor  after  foreclosure,  210. 

notico  to  creditors,  240, 

by  tenant,  2 Ki. 

cestui  (jiie  trust,  21G. 

of  intruder,  240. 

must  be  ])osscssio  pedia,  248. 

must  put  party  on  inr^uiry,  248. 

without  claiming  title,  248. 
OFFER 

for  purchase  by  third  person,  false  assertion  of,  by  vendor,  85. 
OFFICE  BROKAGE  BONDS,  222. 
OMISSION 

of  parcels  from  conveyance,  purchaser  relieved,  418 
OPINION 

puffing  statements  amomiting  to  mcrc'e.xpression  of,  allowable, 

82,  83,  84,  85. 

P 

PARENT  AND  CHILD, 

rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  179,  180,  181,  182. 
PAROL  EVIDENCE.     See  EvtDExcE. 

admissible  to  prove  fraud  in  a  deed,  389. 

not  in  general  admissible  to  vary  a  written  agreement,  41G,  418. 

admissible  to  prove  an  engagement  or  a  representation  amount 
ing  to  an  engagement,  350. 
PART, 

unspecified,  of  estate,  notice  of  charge  as  affecting,  242. 
PARTICEPS  CRnriNIS, 

cannot  in  general  have  relief,  373,  374,  375,  370,  377. 

may  in  particular  cases  have  relief,  377,  378,  379,  388. 
PARTIES 

who  may  sue  for  relief,  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  371,  372,  373. 

defendants  to  a  suit  for  relief  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  379  380 
381,  382. 

third  parties,  who  have  abetted  a  fraud,  may  be  made,  380,  381 


402  iNiuix. 

stand  to  each  otluT,  in  rospeol  of  .K-alings  Ix'twocn  llicin,  in  a 
fiduciary  relation,  182. 

rAKTNKTlSlIIP, 

lirni,  Ik.w  far  l...un<l  l>y  fraud  or  misroprcscntation  of  a  partner, 

111,  rns-j. 
terms  of  rescission  of,  for  fraud,  351. 

PAnT-PEnroiiM  a  n  ck, 

doctrine  of,  founded  on  fraud,  lo."),  1.'j<». 

>vhat  acts  of,  are  or  arc  not  sufficient  in  equity,  130,  137. 

PATENT, 

defects,  vendor  need  not  point  out,  lUl. 
ambiguity,  evidence  not  admissible  to  explain,  435. 

PAYMENT, 

of  moneys,  under  mistake  of  faet,  relievable,  415. 

of  law,  whether  or  not  relievable,  401, 
402,  403. 
injunction  to  restrain  the,  355. 

PLACE  r.ROKAr.E  BONDS,  222. 

PLEADING, 

fraud,  3G5,  300,  307,  308,  309. 

evidence  not  admissible  to  prove  fraud,  unless  fraud  be  alleged 

in  the,  305. 
j.urchasc  fur  value,  without  notice,  309,  370,  371. 
notice,  307. 

POLICIES  OF  ASSrilANCE, 

allirmation  in,  wlun  warranties,  72. 
concealment  in,  lis,  119,  120,  121. 

POST-N  r  PTl AL  SEITLEMENT, 

when  valid  or  not,  as  against  creditors,  200,  201,  202,  20:{.  232, 
2:33. 

POVEliTY, 

of  vendor,  when  a  ground  for  setting  aside  a  contract,  189,  190. 
not  an  excuse  for  laclirn,  311. 

POWEIl, 

'    fraud  upon  n,  relieved  ajjainst,  207,  272. 

where  appointment  is  made  for  benefit  of  ajipointer.  2<>7,  208. 


iM)i:x.  ID.'i 

VOWEll—roufinuvd. 

(»r  (ill-  hciicfiL  ol' parly,  imt  an  olijcct  of  the  povic>r,  2^VJ, 

270. 
or  fur  ;i   imrpose  fcircigii  to  tlio  i)Hri)ose  of  tlie  jjower, 
'^71,  27.2. 
where  necossary  consent  to   it  lias  been  ol)taine<l  l>y  misre- 
presentation, 272. 
when  vitiating  an  appointment  in  tola,  and    when   in   part 
only,  272,  273. 
defective  execution  of  a,  when  aided,  438,  43i>,  410. 
in  favor  of  whom,  440,  441. 
as  against  whom,  444. 
as  against  whom,  not  aided,  444. 
only  in  cases  when  an  intenti(jn  to  execute  clearly  appears, 

441,  442. 
not  aided,  if  executed  by  deed,  instead  of  by  will,  44.3. 

or  if  intention  of  author  of  power  W(juld   be  defeated, 
443. 
of  statutory  powers  not  aided,  444,  445. 
aided  in  favor  of  a  volunteer,  if  there  be  fraud,  445. 
by  will,  when  aided,  442,  443. 

not  aided,  if  the  defect  be  in  the  substance  of  the  power,  440. 
non-execution  of,  as  distinguished  from  defective  execution  of  not 

aided,  unless  there  bo  fraud,  440,  445.* 
fraud  in  preventing  the  execution  of,  relieved  against,  274  445. 

PREFERENCE, 

to  creditors,  assignments  giving,  valid  at  law,  210,  211   212. 
secret,  when  void  in  cases  of  assignment,  214,  21.'). 
fraudulent,  under  the  Bankrupt  Laws,  284, 285,  28(3. 

PREVENTION  OF  ACTS, 

for  benefit  of  third  parties,   fraud  in,  relieved  against,  273,  274, 
275. 

PRINCIPAL  AND  AGENT.     See  Agent. 

rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  172,  173,  174. 
rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  is  not  limited  to  cases 
where  the  relation  actually  exists  at  the  time,  17.5,  170. 
after  termination  of  relation  of,  parties  may  deal,  175,  17(». 
gifts  between,  17G,  177. 

principal  putting  forth  representations  made  to  him  by  his  a^cnr 
as  his  own,  bound  in  equity,  G8. 


404  iM»i:x. 

PlMXriPAL  AND  ACKST—rontuiuci. 

iu>t  liahlo  lutwevor  in  action  for  docoit,  Of),  320. 
form  of  licence,  wlicn  nfjent  has  secretly  boiiglit  from  or  sold  to 
principal,  0 1«.».  :\'iO. 

ri:iuumi:s, 

as  between  innocent  parties,  defrauded  by  a  third,  lJ5i),  llo,  Ml, 

as  between  equitai)!^  iiicunibranccr.s  of  personal  estate,  ll'J. 
as  between  equitable  incumbrancers  of  real  estate,  142. 
as  between  parties  havini;  mere  equities,  322,  323,  324. 
as  betwei-n  voluntary  frmntees,  11)8,  230. 

PRISON, 

contract  entered  into  with  party  in,  valid,  185. 

PROBATE, 

obtained  by  fraud,  relief  against,  334. 

PROFIT, 

trustee,  agent,  &c.,  purchasing  and  making,  must  account,  156, 
172,  349,  350. 

PROOF, 

of  fraud,  must  be  clear  and  conclusive,  383. 
what  is  sufficient,  385. 
rests  in  general  on  party  alleging  fraud,  383. 

burthen  of,  that  transaction   is  free  from  fraud,  rests  on  defend- 
ant in  what  cases,  151,  157,  104, 105,  172,  380,  387. 

burthen  of,  where  deeds  have  been  cancelled,  270. 

what  is,  <jf  fairness  of  transaction,  387,  388. 

PUIiLIC  COMPANIES.     See  CoMrAMEs. 

PUFFING, 

statements  by  vendor,  their  effect,  83,  84,  87. 
on  sales  l)y  auction,  225,  220,  227. 

PURCHASE  iMONEYS, 

notice  of  adverse  rigiit  before  p.iynient  of,  sufllcienf,  318,  310, 

320. 
payment  of,  not  part  performance,  137. 

proriired  by  fraud,  n'lieved  against,  320. 
tiurchaser  allowed  to  foll<»w,  351. 


lM)i:X.  1!»."» 

rrKciiAs]:ii  roii  valli'  wniioiT  notki:.  y..  Notick. 

having  legal  estate,  protected  in  ••<iuity,  312,  '{i;!. 
may  get  in  outstanding  legal  estate,  1513,  .'Ul. 

even  when  his  equitaMe  title  depends  on  u  forged   instru- 
ment, II]  i,  .'51."). 

unless  from  a  trustee,  3 13,  311. 
protected  where  he  lias  tiie  l)est  right  to  call  for  the  legal  estate, 

320. 
of  a  mere  equity,  not  entitled  to  priority,  321,  322. 
may  defend  himself  by  plea,  3G9. 

by  answer,  370,  371. 

by  demurrer  370,  371. 

Q 

QUALIFYING  EXPRESSIONS, 

in  statement  of  quantity,  0.5,  GG,  G7,  3G3. 

QUANTITY, 

deficiency  in,  compensated,  G7,  303. 
misdescription  in,  not  capable  of  compensation,  03. 

R 

KACK-RENT, 

misdcscribcd  as  ground  rent,  03. 

RECEIVER, 

may  not  purchase  for  his  own  benefit,  102. 

RECITAL, 

of  instrument  amounts  to  notice,  241. 
ambiguous,  not  notice,  254. 

RE-CONVEYANCE, 

of  real  estate,  decreed  in  cases  of  fraud  and  mistake,  344.  4.37. 
not  decreed,  if  transaction  is  not  voidable  but  voiJ,  31."). 
on  what  terms  decreed,  345,  340,  347. 

against  trustee,  agent,  &:c.,  who  has  purchased  or  sold  im- 
properly, 340,  350. 
no,  in  general,  until  account  be  taken,  350,  351. 
costs  of,  6cc.,  allowed  to  plaintiff,  350. 
RECORD, 

fraud  in,  provable  by  parol  evidence,  380. 


496  ixuKX. 

JJECTIl'ICATKJX, 

<«f  mistakf  in  wiittrii  iiistrmncnts,  -llS,  WJ,  r.'o.  V2\,  rJv»,  4:ia, 

•1*^1.  lvi:>,  4-20.  1-27. 
cases  ill  wliiih  tlu-iT  raniiol  Ik-,  4*^1,  Vil ,  4»n,  4*J'.». 
not  pivvn,  unless  mistaUo  bo  clearly  jti'uvi-d,  421. 
parol  evi<leiK'e  of  mistake  ailmissiiile  t»M  applieation  (or,  lO'J. 
in  partieular  cases  docrccd,  though  mi-slaki'  is  mily  irnplii-d,  4'-15, 

4'2G. 
of  voluntary  deed  not  ordrred,  uidi-ss  liy  c  )n.sfiit  of  parties,  429. 
orderetl  only  upon  1)111,  not  upon  motion  or  pi'tiliun,  42!>. 
if  there  lie  fraud,  there  can  l)i'  no,  o.")2. 

KEGISTER, 

is  notice  only  if  searched,  2(30. 

removal  of  name  of  parly  induceil  to  take  shares  in  a  company 

by  fraud  from  the,  351. 
removal  of  name  inserted  by  misrt>presentation  on,  of  ii  c<^mpany, 

3r)i,:ir)2. 

KEGISTKATION, 

with  notice  of  unregistered  assurance,  205. 

not  notice  uidess  search  be  made,  203,  2tiG. 

of  assurance  in  Ireland  binds  the  title,  203. 

of  jndi,'ments,  200. 

in  county  register,  205,  20(i. 

is  constructive,  204. 

not  required  to  be  recorded,  204. 

defective,  204. 

led  with  clerk,  2('»1. 

incorrect  index,  204. 

variance  between  record  and  «uii;inal,  2G5. 

renewals,  205. 

t:egistry  acts, 

fraud  upon  the,  relieved  against,  288. 

iiELEASE, 

when  binding  in  e<iuity,  25)7. 

KEMEDIES, 

f..r  fraud,  at  law,  325,  32(5,  32^.  320,  330,  331. 
in  equity,  333. 

rescission,  313,  353. 
for  fraud,  in  ccpiity  declaring  a  party  trustee,  353,  354. 


INDKX.  41)7 

REM  EI  )1 1'^S — continued. 

for  fi-;iuJ,  ill  ixjuity,  injunction,  355,  IJ5G. 

specific  pcrforriiaiicc,  how  aflcctcd  liy  trawl,  '{57. 
358. 

RENEWAL, 

of  lease  by  trustee  enures  for  benefit  of  ccslid  que  trust,  15 1  //. 

RENTS  AND  PllOFITS, 

jurty  in  possisssioii  must  account  for,   on  u  purchase  being  set 

aside,  345,  34(5,  347,  348. 
trustee,  &;c.,  purchasing  must  account  for,  350. 

REPAIRS.     Sec  Imi'uovements. 

REPETITION, 

in  civil  law  of  money  paiil  un  Icr  mistake  of  law,  403. 

REPRESENTATION.     See  Misrepresentation. 

made  recklessly,  is  fraud  at  law,  if  it  be  untrue,  54. 
honestly  believeil  to  be  true,  is  not   a  fraud,  although  it  be  un- 
true, 57,  325. 
.  unless  there  be  a  duty  to  know  the  truth,  57,  GO. 
what  are  reasonable  grounds   for    believing  in   the  truth  of  a, 

G8,  G9. 
duty  of  pa'ty  who  has  innocently  made  a  false,  to  disclose  the 

tiulli,  on  discovering  the  falsehood,  GG,  67. 
as  distiniriiislied  from  a  wai-ranty,  70,  71. 
doctrine  of  notice  does  not  apply,  if  there  be  a  distinct,  79,  80, 

255,  25G. 
party  entitled  to  rely  on  a  distinct,  79,  80,  255. 
as  to  matter  of  o|iinion,  82,  83. 
as  to  value,  not  to  be  relied  on,  84,  85. 
vague,  goes  for  nothing,  83,  84,  85,  86,  87,  83. 
amounting  to  engagements,  90,  274,  275. 
as  to  intention,  88. 

as  distinguished  from  representation,  amounting  to  engage- 
ment, 90,  274,  275. 
by  parties  having  a  duty  to  perform,  111,  38 1. 
person  making  a  false,  if  not  a  party  to  the  transaction,  as  far  as 

possible  compelled  to  make  it  good,  333,  341,  342. 

REPRESENTATIVES, 

of  party  defrauded  may  fde  a  bill  f  jr  relief,  372. 
relief  may  be  had  against,  of  defrauding  party,  after  his  death, 
379,  3S0. 


4JKS  INDKX. 

of  proj>crty  piircliast^tl  liy  inistff,  v.Vc.,  .'Ml*, 
onk'n-il  on  what  trrins,  IM".>,  .'{."»(». 
r.ESClssioN, 

of  dcpils,  iiistruniouts,  *.\:c.,  for  iVamI,  at  law,  320,  327,  328,  331, 

:j.".2. 

ill  I'ljuity,  33:}  et  scq. 
principK-  on  wliuli.  is  lia.l,  32S,  333,  334,335,  330. 
of  sale  of  j^oocls  an.)   cliatltls  at  law   for   fraud,  320,  327,  328, 

32«.),  3:;o. 

cannot  lie  had.  if  tliorc  has  beon  acquioscenco,  32><. 

or   if   riizhts    of    otlurs    jiave   intcrvoiu'd,  327,  328,    320, 

331),  334,  33."). 
or  if  the  parties  cannot  be  restored  to  their  original  position, 
48,  49,  327,  328,  335,  330,  337,  338,  33'.). 
cannot  in  general  be  had,  unless  tlie  transaction  can  be  rescinded 

i«  toto,  52,  330,  337,  338,  331). 
cannot  be  had,  if  the  defrauding  party  is  not  party  to  the  trans- 
action, 331,  340,  341. 
on  what  terms  decreed,  343,  344,  345,  340,  347,  348,  351. 

v.here  trustee,  &c.,  has  bought  or  sold  secretly,  341),  350. 
where  a  man  has  been  induced  to  take  shares  in  a  company, 

351. 
•where  a  man  lias  been  induced  to  enter  into  a  partnership, 
351. 
bill  f >r,  dismissed  without  prvjudice  to  action,  3.52. 
of  transaction  on  the  gmund  of  mistake,  401),  429,  430,  431,  430. 
pri?iciple  on  which  is  h.ad,  430. 
terms  on  which  granted,  430,  437,  438. 

RESERVKI)  HlDDlNd,  225,  220,  227. 

KIuST<»i;\'ri<)\, 

by  purchaser  of  nlten-d  itemises,  compelled,  340,  347. 

IJKSTKAIM.N(;  STATrTl<:s, 

fraud  upon  tli  •.  2nS. 

RESTS, 

directed  in  case  of  frauil,  348, 

liKTKNTlON 

of  deeds  by  vendor,  its  e|]'..t.  I  in.  I  II,  -j:,!. 

UirnCENCE.     See  Silence. 


INDEX.  41)1) 

KEVENUE  LAWS, 
fraud  upon  the,  288. 

Ki:vi:i;sioN, 

jjurcliascr  contractility  for,  must  inform  vendor  of  death  of  tenant 

for  life,  1)0. 
misstatement  on  sale  of,  what  not  matter  for  compensation,  05. 
inadequacy  of  consideration  in  sale  of,  not  a  ground  for  setting 

aside  sale,  187  n. 
'  purchaser  need  not  take,  instead  of  estate  in  possession,  303. 

REVOCATION, 

of  will  under  mistake,  453. 

of  legacy  by  mistake,  452,  453. 


s 

SALE 

by  court,  set  aside  for  fraud,  44,  232,  353. 

of  goods  and  chattels  rescinded  at  law  for  fiaud.  ^20,  327,  328, 

329,  330,  332. 
by  auction,  fraud  in  respect  of,  224, 225,  220,  227. 
of  chattels  sold  under  a  warranty,  rescission  of,  331,  332. 

SETTLEMENT, 

notice  of,  is  notice  of  articles,  241. 

voluntary,  is  fraudulent  as  against   purchasers,  227,  228,  229, 
230,  231,  232. 

who  may  set  aside,  229,  230. 
on  marriage  may  yet  be  fraudulent,  201,  202. 
to  defraud  creditors,  100,  197,  198,  199. 
revocable  is  fraudulent,  211,  212. 
post-nuptial,  when  valid  or  not,  201,  202,  203,  233. 
ante-nuptial,  voluntary  as  to  collaterals,  203,  232. 

unless  in  special  cases,  202,  203,  204,  232,  233. 
underhand  agreement  to  defeat,  avoided  in  equity,  210. 
secret,  of  wife  in  fraud  of  marital  riiriils,  21  (i.  217. 
mistake  in,  when  remedied,  424,  425. 

SIIAKEIIOLDER.     See  Shares. 

in  a  company,  induced  by  misrepresentation  to  take  shares,  upon 

what  terms  relieved,  351. 
removal  of  name  of,  f;om  register,  351,  3.>2. 


M).')  INDKX. 

SllAi:i-:iI(»i.l)i:i:--rc.;j/</Jun/. 

assigiiiin'iit  hv,  of  his  sli;iros  to  a  jluij)-!-,  wlu^tlicr  fniiuliilcnt  or 
not,  277,  27i». 

when  croilitor  of  ooinpanv  may  sue  (nit  i\c»iili<iii  against  a  par- 
ticular, 278. 

snAi:i:s, 

purcliasor  of,  in  a  company,  upon  niisroprospntation  l>y  the  com- 
pany, rolicvcil  from  thf,  .'}4I,  351. 
not   n-li('VC(l  from  (he,  if  ho  was  induced  to  take 
them  by  tlie  fraud  of  a  third  party,  310. 
or  of  a  shareholder,  311. 
nor  relieved  from  the,  if  he  was  induced  to  take 
them  from  a  shareholder  upon  misrepresenta- 
tions by  the  company,  341. 
issued  fraudulently,  right  of  purchaser  of,  to  prove  on  winding 
up,  270. 

SILENCE.     See  Concealment. 

mere,  not  a  fraud,  9G,  100,  128. 

a  fraud,  if  there  be  a  duty  to  speak,  100,  101,  107,  128,  120, 

130,  131. 
a  fraud,  if  there  be  artifices  to  mislead,  100,  101,  131. 
where  both  parties  have  equal  opportunities,  128,  131. 
refusal  to  speak,  with  reason  given,  128. 
on  payment  of  small  sums,  131. 
under  mistake  of  law,  132. 

SOLICITUU  AND  CLIENT.     See  Costs. 

rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  1G3,  1G4,  105,  IGG. 
statement  of  untrue  consitleration  in  a  deed  between,  fatal,  1G7. 
rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  is  not  limited  to  cases 

where  solicitor  is  actually  employed  at  the  time,  107. 
after  termination  of  relation  of,  parties  may  deal  with  c-ach  other, 

1G7,  \m. 

cases  in  which  (he  rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  does  not 

aj.ply,  108,  IGO,  170. 
gifts  from  client  to  solicitor  invalid,  170,  171. 
what  [tarlies  come  within  the  rule  as  to  dealings  between,  171. 

172. 
notice  to  8f)licitor,  notice  to  client,  258,  259,  2G0. 

notwithstanding  solicitor  may  be  couunittiiig  a  fraud,  201. 
fjrm  of  decree  when  solicitor  has  secretly  bought  from  client,  31U. 


INDEX.  501 

SULlClTOi:  AND   (\A\:ST— continued. 
must  disclose  advurse  rt-taituT,  1(53. 
cannot  go  over  to  adverse  party,  K).*). 
suits  belbro  magistrates,  101. 
securities,  1(>4. 
purchaser  from  client,  1G7. 

two  clients,  1(51). 

defendant,  1(5!>. 

SPECIFIC  PEKFOIIMANCE, 

principle  of  the  court  in  respect  of,  357,  358. 

misrcprcscntalion  a  bar  to,  3.58,  359, 

conduct  of  party  scekincr,  must  he  fair  and  dear,  358,  3^54. 

misdescription  a  bar  to,  350,  3(50,  3(52,  3(53. 

unless  compensation  can  be  made,  301,  3(52. 

false  representation  as  to  value  a  ground  for  refusing,  304, 

inadequacy  of  consideration  not  a  ground  for  refusing,  3(j4, 

of  lease  not  enforced,  containing  usual  covenants,  which  defend- 
ant had  no  reasonable  grounds  of  knowing,  244,  3G0,  301. 

mistake  of  defendant  a  bar  to,  410,  411,  412,  4J7, 

parol  evidence  of  misrepresentation  or  mistake  admissible  as  an 
answer  to  a  bill  (or,  3(j4,  412,  417,  418. 

with  parol  variation  introduced  by  the  defendant,  304,  417. 

parol  variation  on  part  of  phiintifTnot  admissilile  in  suit  for,  417, 
418. 

by  purchaser  against  vendor,  who  has  innocently  made  a  mistake 
in  description,  not  enforced  except  on  terms,  304. 

costs  in  suits  for,  390,  392,  455,  450. 

SPOLIATION  OF  DEEDS, 

fraud  l)y,  275,  270, 
STATUTES, 

fraud  upon,  relieved  against,  288. 

of  ^Mortmain,  fraud  upon,  27i). 

of  Limitations,  304. 

13th  Elizabeth,  as  to  creditors,  190. 

27th  Elizabeth,  as  to  purchasers,  220, 
STATUTORY  POWERS, 

no  relief  against  defective  execution  of,  442,  443,  444. 
STRANGER, 

agreement  brought  about  by,  with  a  fraudulent  (dijoct,  yet  valid 
between  parties,  52,  53,  340,  341. 


•~)0'2  iM)i:x. 

liaMi'  for  niisri'pifsi'iitat'nin.  ^i'\.  .'1,  :;i(),  .".tl. 
sri}.M.>>SKE, 

has  notico  of  title  of  iiiiincdiatc  and  oi-i>^iiial  li-ssor,  "21'.^. 

cannot  n-Iy  on  rrprcsonlations  of  his  lessor,  also  a  sijI>losscc  as 
to  covenants  in  lease,  257. 
SI'PPKKSSION  OF  DEEDS, 

fraud  \)y,  '21'},  270. 
SURETYSHIP, 

what  concealment  vitiates  contract  of,  122,  123. 
SURREXDEP, 

of  copyhold  supplied  in  equity,  438,  44(>,  4  17. 
SUSPICION, 

mere,  of  fraud,  is  not  notice,  2o9,  254. 

circuuistanccs  of,  do  not  warrant  conclusion  of  fraud,  384. 


T 
TACKING, 

foundation  of  doctrine  of,  324,  325. 
confined  to  bonajidc  purchaser,  324. 
what  is,  324. 
TENANCY, 

notice  of,  is  notice  of  tenant's  interests,  245,  240,  247. 

but  not  of  lessor's  title,  240,  247. 
past,  notice  of,  not  notice  of  tenant's  interests,  247,  248. 
of  vendor,  notice  of,  is  no  notice  of  lien.  wIkii.  2 10,  247. 

TENANT, 

what  acts  by,  are  part  performance,  13<i. 

TENANT  FOR  LIFE, 

may  purchase  from  trustees  of  settlement,  102,  lO."!. 

with  power  to  sell  or  lease,  may  sell  or  lease  to  himself,  103. 

concealment  of  death  or  dangerous  illin  ^s  (.f.  by  purchaser  of 

reversion,  08. 
death  of,  unknown  to  b<illi  parties  at  time  of  contract,  contract 

vitiat<<l  by,  430. 
TENANT  IN  TAIL, 

induced   by  fraud  to   bar  the  cnt.'iil.   remedy  of  remainderman, 

372. 


liJDEX.  603 

TERM  OF  yi:ai:s, 

instead  of  fee,  purchaser  need  not  accept,  (V2,  O,  "0.2. 
TER]\[S, 

(Ml  wliieli  a  transaction    is    rescinded  for  fraud,  rn.*],  ,']n,  .TJ.'i, 

'M(j,  :u7,  ;j  IS. 

of  rescission  of  partnership  transactions  for  fraud,  351. 
of  rescission  of  contract  for  purchase  of  siiares,  35 1. 
on  setting  aside  a  transaction  for  mistake,  437,  438. 

TIME.     See  Delay. 

hipsc  of,  a  bar  to  relief,  303,  304,  305. 

begins,  in  cases  of  fraud  and  mistake,  to  run  from  the  discovery, 

309,310,  311,430. 
does  not  run  where  there  is  undue  innuence,  310,  311. 
lapse  of,  as  afleeting  remainderman,  312. 
lapse  of,  effect  of,  as  between  trustee  and  cestui  que  (rust,  308, 

309. 
what  lapse  of,  sufficient  to  bar  relief  in  equity,  305,  300. 
TRICK.     See  Cheat. 
TRUSTEE, 

and  cestui  que  trust,  rule  of  equity  as  to  dealings  between,  153, 
154,  155,  150,  157,  158. 
concealment  in  dealings  between,  157,  158. 
■what  parties  within  the  rule,  101,  102. 
what  parties  not  within  the  rule,  100,  102, 

103. 
dealings  between  after  termination  of  rela- 
tion, 159. 
may  not  derive  any  profit  in  the  execution  of  his   trust,  150, 

349,  350. 
selling  property  of  his  own  secretly  to  the  cestui  que  trust,  349. 
buying  property  secretly  from  cestui  que  trust,  349,  350. 
acquiescence  by  cestui  que  trust  in  dealings  with,  when  bindint^ 

303. 
legal  estate  got  in  from,  when  available,  313,  314. 
transactions  relating  to  trust  estate,  154, 
valid  as  to  third  parties,  154. 
binding  on,  155. 
when  remedy  at  law,  155. 
cannot  pureliase  from  himself,  157. 
entitled  to  compensation,  150. 


."ilM  IKDKX. 


u 


rNnKlM.EASK.     Src  Si-ii-Lksske. 

iiistcail  of  liase,  purcliaser  need  not  aeecpt,  odii. 

rNDlK  INFLIENCE, 

rule  of  equity  as  to,  li;>,  !.")(»,  Ls.'I,  In  I. 
what  is,  184,  185,  ISG. 

in  what  cases  relief  has  been  given  against,  IJKJ,  I'.'l,  \*Xt. 
bonds  given  as  a  reward  for,  to  be  exercised  over  testators,  2'22. 
in  the  promotion  of  marriage,  bonds  given  for,  2'20,  221,  222. 
in  preventing  an  act  for  the  benefit  of  third  parties  being  done, 
273,  274. 

V 

VALUE. 

representation  as  to,  not  to  be  relied  on,  83,  84,  85,  8G. 

false  representations  as  t<>,  may  however  amount  to  a  fraud,  84, 

87,  88. 
vendor  may  put  upon  purchaser  tiie  responsibility  of  telling  him 

the,  87,  88. 

VUHNTARY  CONVEYANCE.     See  Fkacdulent  Conveyance. 
of  real  estate,  void  as  against  subsequent  purchaser,  227,  228, 

220,230,231,232. 
contract  to  sell  with  notice  of,  enforced  by  purchaser,  229. 
maker  of,  may  defeat  it  by  a  sale,  22'.>. 

heir  or  devisee  of  settler  of,  may  not  defeat  it  by  u  sale,  22'.». 
of  chattels  not  defeasible  by  a  sale,  233. 
void  as  against  creditors,  200,  201,  202,  203. 
OS  distinguished  from  settlement  for  value,  200,  201,  202,  203, 

232,  233. 

W'AKI).       tSce   (IfAllDIAN    AND    NVakd. 

WAIiliANTY, 

what  is  a,  70,  71,  72. 

as  distinguished  from  representation.  70,  71. 

docs  not  cover  patent  «lefects,  101. 

of  title  on  sale  of  gfjods,  104,  105. 

rescission  of  sale  of  chattels  sold  inilcr  a,  '•VM. 


WILL, 

fniiul  ill  (ihtiiiiiiiiL,',  not  cognizublo  in  f<|iiity,  41,  JJoL 
what  is  undue  indiicnco  in  obtaining,  184,  185. 
revocation  of,  by  mistake,  4r>2,  453. 
mistake  in,  when  corrected  in  equity,  448,  4  I!>,  -l.'iO. 

jiaiol  evidence  admissible  to  exphiin,  4(52. 
e.xeculion  uC  power  by,  instead  of  by  deed,  442. 

by  deed,  instead  of  by,  443. 
WITNESS.     See  Attesting  Witness. 

testimony  of  one,  will  not  prevail  against  a  denial  by  answer, 
399. 


WlTEftSnv  (':    '  \urORNlA 
L06  ANGELKS 


AA    UUU/bUlOO 


r>i^ 


ebbs: 


•.f 


W  M 


i 


*ii 


M  aJK 


\  _  lit         lA  \,' 


ii    :^ 


VM 


! 


si  a  ti  A  ¥ 


ti.KM 


